PRIVATE BUSINESS

Committee of Selection

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October],
	That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Good Friday Agreement

Ben Chapman: What aspects of the Good Friday agreement remain to be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: The Government are determined to press forward with all aspects of the agreement. The key priority now is to restore the devolved institutions. Essential to that is the restoration of trust that all parties remain committed to fulfilling their obligations and, crucially, the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.

Ben Chapman: While I appreciate that we face testing times in Northern Ireland with the suspension of power sharing, does my right hon. Friend concur with me that the Good Friday agreement is about much more than that? Does he agree that the suspension of the Assembly and the Executive, much as it is to be regretted, should not be allowed to stall progress in other areas of the agreement? Can he confirm that all possible steps are being taken to implement those other measures?

John Reid: Yes. As my hon. Friend points out, the Belfast agreement has brought considerable benefits to people in Northern Ireland. We have made considerable progress, which is reflected in the day-to-day life of people in Ulster in terms of their standards of living and their security compared with a decade ago. It is the Government's intention to carry forward those items of the agreement that fall to our respective jurisdiction. It is important to remember that the agreement has not been suspended; it is the Assembly and the Executive that, regrettably, have had to be suspended. Having said that, we should not diminish the effect and success of devolved and inclusive government in Northern Ireland, which was greatly appreciated by people in Ulster.

David Trimble: On the question of the agreement's implementation, will the Secretary of State look again at those matters which the Government have done and are proposing to do that are not part of the agreement? I refer, of course, to the special category that has been invented for certain Members and the proposed special measures for so-called on-the-runs. Those matters are not part of the agreement and the Government should look again at them.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to the suspension of the Assembly, which was not inevitable and is exercised at the Secretary of State's discretion. As that suspension arose from events in his own Department—the massive breach of security in his own Department—will he come to the House, when what has been called the root-and-branch examination of his Department by the Security Service has been completed, to explain precisely how that massive breach of security occurred and to outline arrangements for a proper inquiry into it?

John Reid: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, access to facilities in the House is, of course, a matter for the House, and any wider aspect of that is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms.
	On the breach of security to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I have already said that I have asked the Security Service to carry out an investigation and inquiry into it, not least to safeguard our position in the future. I think that he will understand that it is not always possible, in such circumstances, to put before the House as full details as I would wish because that, in itself, may compromise the future safeguarding of our position; but I will certainly consider how we can share what information can be shared with the right hon. Gentleman and the House.

Eddie McGrady: Given that the Governments are intent on the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that there can be no level of acceptable paramilitary activity—the so-called in-house or political violence, or indeed in the structures of paramilitarism—in either jurisdiction, the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom? Does he agree that further concessions to loyalist or republican paramilitaries would be entirely corrosive of the democratic process and destructive of the peace process in the long term? Will he reaffirm that the true way forward is by full, round-table negotiations with all the parties that are signatories to the Good Friday agreement, not by what can be destructive, unilateral meetings in secret?

John Reid: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. First, let us be clear that there is no acceptable level of violence. Violence is violence, and crime is crime, from wherever it comes. From wherever it comes, whatever the consequences, on whatever side of the community, and whatever political discomfort it might throw up, crime will be pursued by the police, and the police will follow where the evidence leads. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that that will be applied in an even-handed fashion across the community.
	A great deal of publicity has been given recently to arrests and charges laid against republicans. We should also remember that, in recent weeks, a considerable number of loyalists have been arrested and charged by the police. Last night, there was another disgraceful attack causing injury to young men in the Short Strand area, and I want to congratulate the police on their hard work leading to the discovery and retention yesterday of a considerable arsenal of weapons, which, apparently, was connected with loyalists. There is no doubt in my mind that it was destined for murderous attempts at violence. We should all congratulate the police on the way in which they have been applying themselves, with some success, against crime wherever it arises.

Iris Robinson: Is the Secretary of State not yet ready to accept, as evidenced by the recent opinion poll on XHearts and Minds", that two thirds of the unionist community do not support the agreement? Is it not time, therefore, to call early elections, followed by negotiations for a new agreement which would have the endorsement of unionists and nationalists?

John Reid: Like the hon. Lady, I follow opinion polls carefully, although, of course, they are not definitive. Some recent opinion polls, however, have given some interesting indications of the feelings of people in Northern Ireland. First, there is a loss of confidence in the way in which the agreement is proceeding among the unionist community. Secondly, for three quarters of those who have misgivings in the unionist community, the most important single issue is the continued activity in violence or the means of violence by the republican movement. That is why we have said that there is now a real crossroads, at which there is a decision to be taken. We await the response of the republican movement to what the Prime Minister has said in recent days, but I cannot see how we can restore sufficient trust to have inclusive government of a devolved nature in Northern Ireland without a definitive move in that direction.
	I also note other factors that are illustrated in the opinion polls: the continuing lead, in terms of support among the unionist community, for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, and 80 per cent. support for him inside his party.

Peter Mandelson: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend, but congratulate him on his handling of recent events in Northern Ireland, in which he has shown considerable skill and judgment? Does he agree that implementation of the Good Friday agreement has, for years, been dogged by the issue of arms decommissioning, but that that is a proxy gesture for what is really needed: a full-hearted commitment by the republican movement to ending the war completely and saying so in terms?
	What is needed now is a genuinely substantial shift in the attitude of the rest of the republican movement to the future of the IRA. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a move will not be easy for republicans, and that demonising Sinn Fein will not in any sense help the republican movement in that direction? May I encourage him along the lines in which he has indicated that he is moving, and urge him to bring these matters to their logical conclusion—the end not only of the provisional IRA but of all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland?

John Reid: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and praise—coming from the quarter that it does, it means much more than it usually would in the House. Secondly, he has couched his question, and the implied recommendations, wisely. It is wise counsel. We must recognise that the republican movement has come a huge distance in recent years, and none of us should diminish that. We must also recognise that just as continuing activity by republican paramilitaries is the major factor, in my view, undermining the capacity to continue with power sharing in Northern Ireland, in turn loyalist paramilitary activity is not only murderous in its intent but becomes an excuse and a reason for the republicans not to reduce their level of activity, and an obstacle to their doing so.
	Finally, we should recognise that everyone should be seen to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means in deeds as well as in words and that, as I have said so often in the House, the question of activity goes well beyond a ceasefire. If people are suspected of preparing and maintaining a capability to break the ceasefire in future, that will, and has, undermined the trust of the other parties to power sharing. Unless those issues are addressed in a definitive fashion, all of us who are partners to the agreement and partners in shaping a new Northern Ireland will ultimately fail. I hope that all of us, including the leadership of republicanism, will reflect on that point.

Lembit �pik: Given that paragraph 8 of the validation, implementation and review section of the agreement says that
	Xthe two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference four years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation,
	do the Government intend to carry out such a review and, if so, when?

John Reid: Yes, we intend to carry out that particular review, but I am tempted to say it will be after we carry out all the other reviews that are now stacking up for us. I think that the time scale that the parties envisaged for that reviewthis is not definitivewas at the end of next year. However, we now have a legal duty upon us as a consequence of suspension to carry out a review under the Northern Ireland Act 2000. I have already talked to a number of the parties, in various capacities, about that. Yesterday, I talked to our colleagues in the Irish Government and, next week, I will have meetings with all the partiesand not just the pro-agreement partiesrepresented in the Assembly to fulfil the beginnings of the obligations placed upon us to have such a review subsequent to suspension.

Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend has taken a difficult and, in many ways, a very courageous decision. Will he assure the House that, in his pursuit of following up the Good Friday agreement, there will be no let up on those matters concerning human rights, equality between the communities, and pushing forward those concepts and ideas? Will he also say when we will see legislation arising out of agreements that were made with some people at Weston Park?

John Reid: We intend to continue with all aspects of the agreement, including those aspects that we have put into the public domain over the past 18 months. On human rights and equality, there is no question of this Government oras far as I am awareany party in Northern Ireland wanting us to go back to a stage before equality or human rights were enshrined. I merely say to my hon. Friend that, although it is only one aspect of the agreement, devolved power sharing and the capacity of the people of Northern Ireland together to shape their future is, in my view, a vital part. Unless we can overcome the obstacles to achieving thatthe real choice facing people is between democracy and violencewe will never fulfil the agreement in full. Much emphasis must be placed on that, and I and my colleagues on the Front Bench will certainly do that. I am sure that the other parties and the Irish Government will also do that over the coming weeks so that we can achieve our aim.

Quentin Davies: May I offer our warm congratulations to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on discovering the major loyalist arms cache?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from us that the Prime Minister's new tone on Northern Ireland in last week's speech in Belfast is very welcome? The Prime Minister was right to state that there is a fork in the road and that there is a choice for the parties to the agreement between implementing its obligations and breaching it. Even if we had to wait four and a half years for those words from the Prime Minister, it is good to hear them so clearly now. Does the Secretary of State accept that if the Government sustain this new line not merely in rhetoric but in action, and if there is a definitive end to the disastrous policy of turning a blind eye and making unilateral concessions, the Government will henceforth enjoy our support?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am sure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister will be fortified by his support.
	Let me repeat what I have often said in the House. There has been no turning of a blind eye by either the politicians in Northern Ireland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They have conducted themselves in the most appropriate fashion in the most difficult circumstances. If the police are now having more success as a result of the application that they have applied to unearthing crime and violence and to arresting and charging people, it is a result of their good and continuing work; it is not because they have changed their approach.

Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid his embarrassment and that of the Government by diverting attention from what I said. The police have done an excellent job. They uncovered some extraordinary things in Stormont and the Northern Ireland Office, and also with the break-in at Castlereagh. The Americans did some tremendous police work in Florida and we know about events in Columbia. It was those events to which the Government turned a blind eye.
	However, I want to look forward. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only possible viable solution in Northern Ireland must be comprehensive and global? Does he further acceptif only in the light of events, not because we have been saying so for many monthsthat the principles that we have been urging on the Government, of linkage, multilaterality, sanctions for non-compliance, balance and, indeed, timetables for implementation, must be an essential part of a settlement and his negotiations from now on?

John Reid: I was discourteous in omitting a welcome to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) to the Front Bench. I also welcome what I take to be an obfuscated restoration of bipartisanshipif not hyper-multilateralismto the problems that we face. I understood the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to say that everything is linked to everything else. He is certainly accurate in that.

Forensic Centre

Martin Smyth: What plans he has to build a new forensic centre.

Des Browne: We are committed to providing alternative accommodation for the Forensic Science Agency and have accepted the recommendation in the criminal justice review that new dedicated accommodation would be desirable. The Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland, with the Department, is in the process of engaging consultancy advice to take forward a project to meet its long-term accommodation needs.

Martin Smyth: May I welcome the Under-Secretary's two new colleagues to the Front Bench, although I am sure that we all wish them a short stay in the Province?
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a positive step forward after the 10 years or so since the premises were demolished. Does he agree that the need for the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland is as vital as ever? I pay tribute to its work and remind him that staff cuts have left the service short-handed in light of the new bombing campaigns.

Des Browne: On behalf of my new colleagues, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. They share his hope that devolution is restored to Northern Ireland sooner rather than later.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the significant contribution that the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland has made to the investigation of crime. In many respects, it is a world leader. The service has put up with unsuitable accommodation for too long. It is fair to point out that it provides services for both prosecution and defence. It is seen to be independent of both, and its standing nationally and internationally has never been higher.

Peace Process

Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on progress with the peace process.

John Reid: There is at present in Northern Ireland a lack of confidence that all parties to the Belfast agreement will fulfil their obligations under it, especially the commitment to follow exclusively peaceful means. That has led to the suspension of devolved government, which I hope will be short lived. The peace process and the agreement remain, in my view, fundamentally sound, and the only way forward for Northern Ireland.

Nick Palmer: Following on from some of the Secretary of State's previous replies, does he agree that in view of the unfortunate events and the blizzard of hostile comments by motivated politicians, the surprising thing is that there is still solid support for the peace process, and that as long as the police continue to find illegal arms, as they so successfully did yesterday, people would be horrified if the interruption to the Assembly were to lead to an end to the peace process?

John Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend about the success of the police, not only yesterday but over the past few weeks. As I said, they are to be congratulated on that. On the devolved Assembly, it is my sincere wish that the suspension should be very short. I thank hon. Members for congratulating and welcoming my Ministers; I hope that theirs is a short term of office. I see that one of them has been moved already; his office was even more short lived than he anticipatedwelcome to Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: I understand that considerable progress has been made towards announcing the appointment of the ceasefire monitor, who will of course play a key role in the peace process. When does the Secretary of State intend to announce that appointment?

John Reid: Over the past couple of weeks we have been somewhat diverted from some of the issues on the agenda. If anything, on that matter, events have moved on even further, so I am sure that it will be considered, not least in our meetings with political parties next week and subsequently.

John Taylor: Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? When will he finally get round to appointing the independent monitor of violence?

John Reid: I repeat my welcome to the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I thought that I had answered the hon. Lady's question. There are many issues to be considered and that is one of them. Events have moved on, and we have been somewhat busy over the past week trying to consult Ministers from Northern Ireland, including not least the First and Deputy First Ministers, and our colleagues in the Irish Government, to try to find a way forward on the governance of Ireland, on the implementation of the agreement and on breaking the impasse.
	What is central to the question, and why I have no doubt that it will be raised again, is that we cannot sustain a level of trust sufficient to have a devolved power-sharing Government in Northern Ireland if some of the parties to it appear to be involved in criminal or violent activity. There is no question that this issue, the crossroads issue, will fall off the agenda.

Fireworks

Barry Gardiner: What restrictions the Government are placing on the purchase, possession, sale and use of fireworks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: Additional controls were, regrettably, required in Northern Ireland because of the widespread misuse of fireworks generally, throughout the community and particularly against the security forces in public order situations. The regulations, which came into effect on 6 May 2002, require a licence for the possession, sale, acquisition, handling or use of all fireworks except those suitable for indoor use.

Barry Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Has there been a reduction in using fireworks for making pipe bombs, which were extensively used against the security forces in the past? Has the change in the regulations meant a decrease in youth violence involving fireworks and damage to property? Does she believe that the mainland could learn from her piloting work?

Jane Kennedy: The misuse of fireworks to which my hon. Friend alludes is precisely why I introduced the regulations, albeit reluctantly. It is early days, but the signs are encouraging. Last week, the Derry Journal reported that local police said that, from their point of view, the new regulations have had a good effect. I intend to review and monitor the position in Northern Ireland, especially over halloween, and to learn from the experiences of both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the ordinary folk in the community, who made such an issue of the matter last year.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Doug Naysmith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 October.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings today.

Doug Naysmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Fire Brigades Union and the firefighters have a good case for a substantial increase in remuneration, but that they are currently pursuing the wrong tactics? Does he further agree that the sooner the employers and the union get together in meaningful negotiations, the better it will be for everyone?

Tony Blair: Perhaps I should say at the outset that no one wants the dispute, and that we shall do all we can to avoid a dispute that would be damaging for obvious reasons. However, there are two difficulties. The first is a pay demand of 40 per cent., to which no Government could yield. Secondly, inasmuch as the firefighters want a new formula, for which we understand the reasons, it would be best for them to co-operate with the independent review, which can provide such a formula. If they co-operate with the review, I am sure that we can resolve the matter satisfactorily. Those with the interests of the firefighting service at heart, the public and the Government want that.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with the Prime Minister that there is no reason for strike action. Will he confirm that the safety of the general public is more important than the sanctity of a picket line? Will he give troops access to the most modern firefighting equipment if the strike goes ahead?

Tony Blair: I agree that public safety is the most important factor. There are practical issues such as training to consider, but we must also make a judgment. The dispute is not under way yet and we are doing what we can to resolve it. It is sensible to do what we can to try to calm matters and get the firefighters' union to understand that the way forward is to participate in the review, submit evidence to it and get the matter settled. We do not rule out anything to protect the public. However, at this juncture, we believe that allowing military personnel to operate the appliances that they have is the best way in which to proceed. We keep that judgment under constant review, but if we were to follow another path at this stage, we would probably exacerbate rather than resolve the dispute.

Iain Duncan Smith: I hear what the Prime Minister says. I suspect that he would like to re-examine the comments that the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday. Speaking about the practicalities, he said that it would take three months to train soldiers to use the equipment. That comment led me to ring the Retained Firefighters Union this morning. [Interruption.] Its members' sympathies may lie in the wrong place, but they told me that, in training to cope with emergencies, learning to drive a modern firefighting engine would take five days; learning the basics of specialist cutting equipment would take seven days; and learning to use breathing equipment would take 10 days. So, by the union's estimate, the Government would be able to put in place teams of troops trained to use this equipment not in 12 weeksas the Deputy Prime Minister saidbut in two weeks. Perhaps I can ask the Prime Minister once again what his plan is. Has he made contingency plans to give the troops access to that equipment?

Tony Blair: On the training times, our best information is that the full range of training necessary would indeed take 12 weeks, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. There are, however, other thingsto do with driving the appliances, for examplethat would take a shorter time. The judgment that we have to make at the moment is whether it would be sensible for us to have troops going into the fire stations, taking out the fire appliances in circumstances in which the firefighters would not be co-operating, then returning them. That might simply inflame the dispute rather than cooling it down and ensuring that we are able to get it resolved satisfactorily. Having said all that, however, we are keeping the matter under review because the safety of the public must come first. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that, in doing this, the best thing that we could possibly do is to try to avoid the dispute by ensuring that everyone comes behind the independent review. So we are keeping all those options under review, but I hope that he will agree that, at the present time, what we are doing is probably the best way of ensuring that we actually resolve this.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is absolutely right to let all those who are likely to be engaged in the dispute know exactly what the Government are prepared to do. That means that if the Deputy Prime Minister is using a set of training figures that is not correct, it will mislead all those who are wondering what might happen. It is worth remembering that, when the Green Goddesses were last used, they were only 20 years old, yet two soldiers died driving them and 325 service men were injured fighting fires with that equipment. Today, that equipment is 50 years out of date. The job of the Government is surely to take all necessary steps to safeguard the public, regardless of the sensibilities of a striking union. I ask the Prime Minister simply this: should not he now send the very clear signal to that union that, if its members go on strike, the Government are likely to want to use the equipment that is sitting idle in the fire stations? Will he now say that that is the case?

Tony Blair: First, the equipment is not sitting idle in the fire stations; it is being used by the firefighters. I would simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that we do everything that we possibly can to make the right preparations. This is not just a question of the Green Goddesses; it is also a question of breathing apparatusthere are about 300 teams trained to use thatand the use of cutting machinery, for which there is special training. We are doing every single thing that we can to make proper contingency plans, but we take the view that, at this stage, forcibly to go in, take the fire tenders out of the fire stations and do the work that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting would exacerbate and inflame the dispute, rather than get it resolved. I hope that that is not what he wishes.
	I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman thinks there could be any doubt about the signal that we are sending to the firefighters. We are sending a very clear signal. We understand the issues that they have around the new pay formula, but there is a simple way of avoiding this dispute. There is an independent review into the pay formula: co-operate with the review; and realise that no Government could accede to a 40 per cent. wage claimthat simply is not on. If the firefighters do that and present their evidence, it can be looked at by the independent review and adjudicated on, and we can get on with running the fire service properly.

Iain Duncan Smith: The issue is not whether the Government disagree with the pay dispute. We accept and agree with that. The issue is whether they are now engaged in a dispute about which they are not sending clear signals. The reality is that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have both said that the problem about using modern fire appliances is to do with whether there are practicalities involved in training. The Retained Firefighters Union has said that that is not the case. So why cannot the Prime Minister be absolutely clear about this? If it comes to the question of whether he will order the troops to cross the picket line, the answer must surely be that he will, to safeguard the public.

Tony Blair: There must be no question of any doctrine or ideology preventing us from protecting the public. Of course that is right.
	Let me deal with the two issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. There are real issues in respect of trainingpractical issues, which the Deputy Prime Minister rightly raised yesterday. As for whether we should send troops into the fire stations before the dispute has begun, at the very moment when we are trying to resolve it

Iain Duncan Smith: No.

Tony Blair: That is, actually, precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to doand it would end up simply exacerbating and inflaming the dispute at the very moment when we are trying to settle it. I hope very much that the Conservative party is not going to sit there trying opportunistically to exploit the situation, rather than ensuring that it is dealt with properly.
	I say that in particular because, while the right hon. Gentleman talks of our not sending a clear signal to the firefighters, I could not be clearer. We cannot support the 40 per cent. claim. We believe it is important that the firefighters get behind the pay formula that will be worked out in an independent review, but no Government could agree to a pay award that would effectively cause chaos right across the public sector. It would mean, simply, not just that we would not be able to put into public services the extra spending that we want to put in, but that people's mortgages and interest rates would go up.

Meg Munn: What impact are parenting orders having on the reoffending behaviour of young people? [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Read it again!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady read it again?

Meg Munn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask my right hon. Friend what impact parenting orders are having on reducing the reoffending behaviour of young people?

Tony Blair: I thought for a moment that it was a question about antisocial behaviour orders. I was about to suggest that they might be applied to the Conservative party.
	Parenting orders are having an impact, but there is a problem: the court procedures required to obtain such orders are not as strong or as tight as we need them to be. That is one of the things we are looking at now in the context of the Queen's Speech and forthcoming legislation. It is important for us to ensure that parents accept their responsibilities, and in particular that they make sure that their children turn up at school on time.

Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is precisely because all people in this country recognise the vital role played by firefighters that all people, equally, find it unbelievable that the leadership of the Fire Brigades Union think a 40 per cent. wage increase could possibly be acceptable, and indeed that strike action could in any way be allowable at this stage? Given that the sensible way forward is the FBU leadership's contributing to the Bain review, does the Prime Minister agree that the Government must also show intent to bring forward the timetable for the review so that it can report sooner rather than later?

Tony Blair: The point about whether we can bring forward the review, which I think people made yesterday as well, is perfectly reasonable. Obviously in the end it is for Sir George Bain to decide how he conducts the review. The problem at the moment is that the firefighters will not co-operate with it in any shape or form. That means that they will not give evidence to it. They have instructed their members in the fire stations not to talk to Sir George Bain when he is conducting his review, and for that reason it is hard for him to complete it within the time scale that he would ideally want.
	Obviously this is something that we keep under discussion. If it were possible to secure a change of attitude on the part of the firefighters' leadership and they could co-operate with the review, I have no doubt that we could ask Sir George to bring it forward. However, another point needs to be made. Right from the beginning, the employers have also told the firefighters that any award under the review would be backdated. Because of that, they are fully protected in relation to pay.

Charles Kennedy: As a follow-on to the Prime Minister's latter remarks, does he agree that the pressure on the leadership of the Fire Brigades Union to allow its members to participate more fullyor indeed, participate at allin the Bain independent inquiry would be increased constructively if he were able to discount some of yesterday's press reports that whatever the outcome of the Bain findings, the Chancellor will not make any additional sums available for possible funding of implications that may follow?

Tony Blair: The Chancellor is not saying that. We have set up an independent review. It is important that everyone cooperate with it and we shall consider its outcome carefully and I have no doubt sympathetically, but of course it has to be done within the Government's overall spending limits. Another issue is the need to make sure that, if there is a new pay formula, it deals not only with pay, but with all the other issues. There are many issues involving the modernisation of the service, modernisation of the terms and conditions of employment, how we recruit and retain firefighters and how they cooperate with other agencies, particularly at the scene of an accident or fire. So there is a whole range of considerations. Of course we will consider carefully the outcome of the Bain review, but it has to be done, as one would expect the Chancellor to say, within the overall spending limit set by the Government.

Roger Berry: Will my right hon. Friend join me, and I hope all hon. Members, in welcoming the lobby of Parliament today by the Mental Health Alliance, which represents 50 organisations of mental health service users, providers, carers and professional organisations? Will he undertake to give careful consideration to the serious concerns that they have expressed about certain parts of the draft Mental Health Bill?

Tony Blair: It is precisely because we decided to introduce a draft Bill that we are able to consider the consultations. I think from memory that just under 2,000 different consultations have been received. I understand the concerns expressed by members of the Mental Health Alliance. It is important that they realise that there is public pressure in a different direction. The public worry that some people, who tragically have a severe mental disorder, can pose a danger and threat to the public, so we need to strike a balance. Precisely because we realise that some of these issues are difficult, we decided to produce a draft Bill and that allows us to take account of these consultations before we publish the actual Bill that we will legislate.

Michael Jack: In May, the Pensions Minister said that policies which were having the effect of raising levels of private saving were having a positive effect. Can the Prime Minister therefore explain why on Monday this week the Office for National Statistics identified that the figure for pension savings was some #43 billion lower than the figure that Ministers were using? What does he intend to do about that? Will he please ask the Chancellor to stop frightening those who are saving for their pensions with threats of higher taxes?

Tony Blair: I do not believe that the Chancellor has done any such thing, but as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the ONS press release, the change was in the calculation of the amount of money that is available for pensions, not in the amount that people are saving. Indeed, that amount is going up, not down.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Prime Minister join me in recognising the potential contribution of Wales to the creative industries and welcoming the decision of the National Assembly of Wales to give the go-ahead for the largest film and stage studio in Europe, near Llanilud? To paraphrase XUnder Milk Wood: Praise the Lord, we are a creative nation.

Tony Blair: All that and beating Italy too. Yes of course I pay tribute to the proposals. This particular project is immensely exciting, not just for Wales, but for the whole United Kingdom and I congratulate the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Executive on putting it together. I have no doubt that the spin-off in terms of jobs and industry will be enormous, so congratulations all round.

Andrew George: If the Prime Minister agrees that, to combat international terrorism, the United Kingdom should support actions that make it less likely rather than more likely, will he tell the House which he thinks would command more support at home and at the UN; the unilateral option of President Bush or the multilateral approach of President Chirac?

Tony Blair: Since we are all trying to work on a UN resolution, it is important to recognise that, obviously, the best approach is to work through the UN and get multilateral action to make sure that Saddam knows very clearly that he must disarm his weapons of mass destruction and that if he does not, severe consequencesincluding, if necessary, military actionwill follow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts this fact also: that, in today's worldparticularly in light of the news that has come out of North Korea in the past weekit is important that we work on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, that we are not complacent about it and that we recognise that we and the Americans are right to raise the issue. We need the broadest possible basis of action; let that happen through the UN but let the UN be the way of dealing with it.

Gordon Marsden: The Prime Minister and the Government are taking commendable initiatives to increase support to victims and witnesses of crime. However, is my right hon. Friend aware of the National Audit Office report, published today, that indicates that referral rates to Victim Support by police forces vary alarmingly in different parts of the country? I know from cases that I have taken up in Blackpool how vulnerable and isolated victims can feel. Will my right hon. Friend take action on the report to make sure that all police forces countrywide are equally aware of the benefits of Victim Support?

Tony Blair: We will certainly work with Victim Support to do that. As my hon. Friend may know, we have doubled the funding for Victim Support, which now helps about 1.5 million victims and witnesses every year. Victim Support has recruited 2,500 new volunteers in the past 18 months, but we need to make sure that the system is used in the same way throughout the country. That is precisely the point that has been raised and that is what we are working on now.

Iain Duncan Smith: Two years ago the Prime Minister said:
	XClinical need is supposed to determine whether people are treated or not. If that is not happening, that is wrong.
	Yesterday, Mr. Bircher, a senior orthopaedic surgeon, said:
	XOrders are that we must get our waiting lists down, so we must stop treating badly injured patients.
	Is Mr. Bircher's experience an isolated case, or does the Prime Minister think that the problem is caused by his Government's targets?

Tony Blair: I certainly stand by what I said about the importance of clinical need. I gather that the allegations made by Mr. Bircher are being investigated by the local trust, as is entirely right. Once the trust has investigated, it will see whether the allegations are correct or not. Certainly it is the case that clinical need should come first.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is not an isolated case. The National Audit Office, in its recent report, said that over half of all consultants said that clinical priorities were taking second place to Government targets. The British Medical Association said yesterday that targets
	Xthreaten the survival of patients with complex, life threatening injuries.
	Is the Prime Minister now saying that this is just an isolated case, or is it that all those doctors, including the BMA, are completely wrong? Should not he take action to get the administrators and Government Ministers out of the process, stop setting those targets and let doctors take over again?

Tony Blair: I find that an absolutely extraordinary thing to say. Obviously, the allegations have to be investigated and, of course, it is right that clinical need comes first. But what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end is extraordinary: that we should scrap any of the waiting list and waiting time targets. He shakes his head, but that is what he just said. [Interruption.] I heard him say it. I know he is a quiet man, but I heard that. Let me make this point to him. Of course we must make sure that clinical need comes first, but I have no intention of getting rid of targets to reduce waiting times and waiting lists because they are important for patients. The vast majority of people, including many who are watching now, will have received excellent service from the NHS and, incidentally, they know perfectly well that the reason why the Tories run down the NHS is that they are against the NHS. [Interruption.]Absolutely. However the problem that many people face is one of access into the health service. They wait too long for their operation, they wait too long to see their GP, and they wait too long in accident and emergency. Setting targets[Interruption.] Waiting lists and waiting times are down since we came into office. The reason for that is precisely that we are putting in money and changing the system. If the right hon. Gentleman is now saying not merely that he is against the money going into the health servicethat we knewbut against the reform of the national health service, I suggest that he gets quieter still. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Mark Todd.

Mark Todd: If I may, I shall speak up first on behalf of my constituents. From my own experience, some of the worst examples of anti-social behaviour are found among tenants[Interruption.] Indeed, such examples are perhaps found among Opposition Members, as well as among tenants of private landlords. Such behaviour is often tolerated, at the very least, by those landlords, in defiance of their own tenancy agreements. We have been encouraged by many of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend, and by the announcements on housing benefit reform and a possible change of tack that would strengthen the controls. Will he enlighten us further?

Tony Blair: What I can say is that, in terms of parenting orders, just over 2,000 have been made. It is fair to say that anti-social behaviour orders had a slow start, but about 700 of them have now been granted. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), the problem with both orders is that, often, the bureaucracy needed to achieve them is too cumbersome. We are looking at how to make sure that we tighten that up, and to ensure that they are easier to implement. For many people in this country, the problems of anti-social behaviour are right at the top of their agenda. They recognise that what we need are simple and flexible ways of making sure that, in a community, the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding people are the ones in control.

Bill Wiggin: Can the Prime Minister tell the House if he still believes that the national Fire Brigades Union is XScargillite? How exactly is he going to stamp on it?

Tony Blair: As I said a moment or two ago, I think that the strikein the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) yesterdayis Xsimply indefensible for the reasons that I have given. Frankly, I had very much hoped that the Conservatives would have the honesty and sense to stand up and say that they agree with the Government, because actually, they do.

Coalfield Communities

John Mann: What plans he has to raise aspirations in coalfield communities.

Tony Blair: We are firmly committed to regeneration in coalfield communities through education and job creation. We have already made substantial provision to support this commitment: #385 million for English Partnerships' national coalfield programme, more than #90 million in funding for the coalfields regeneration trust, and #10 million for the coalfield enterprise fund. I hope that this is an indication of how we desire to make the investment necessary to raise aspirations in coalfield communities.

John Mann: At the public inquiry into heroin that I conducted recently, former miners were in tears when they talked about the lives of their sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters being destroyed by heroin addiction. Will the Prime Minister reflect on the recommendations for action in the report that I have delivered to him? Will he note that, if drug courts are to be introduced, my community wants to be one of the first to have them?

Tony Blair: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members from up and down the country. I have received his report, and I will study it carefully and come back to him with some decisions and recommendations on it. The point that he makes is right. What we are trying to doobviously, this involves the up-coming criminal justice legislationis to make sure that we have proper drug treatment in local communities, and proper orders that the courts can give. An example is the drug treatment and testing orders, which are being very successfully implemented in many parts of the country. We must also make sure that we do not have a situation in which people who genuinely want help to get off their drug addiction do not have the chance to do so. We are increasing investment in drug abuse programmes, and in addition, we need to use the measures outlined in the proceeds of crime legislation to try to attack the assets of the drug dealers who have caused such misery in our local communities. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says about drug courts, and I shall certainly bear it in mind.

Engagements

Andrew Robathan: Does the Prime Minister accept that Sinn Fein's recent actions, including referring to him as Xthe naive idiot, have not only let him down and undermined his quest for peace, but betrayed all the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom? Will he therefore ensure that Sinn Fein MPs cannot use offices in the House of Commons for their plotting, nor draw public money, through parliamentary allowances, that may later be used for terrorist activity?

Tony Blair: First, I understand that office facilities are a matter for the House, not me. [Interruption.] I can only imagine what Opposition Members would say if I said that they were a matter for me.
	I said what I had to say about Sinn Fein last week, but I have something to say to the Conservatives on the matter. When we were in opposition, we worked really hard with the then Conservative Government on a bipartisan approach. I think that it is a shame that we no longer have such an approach. If the Opposition are worried about the Government having dealings with so-called terrorists or with Sinn Fein, there is something of which I want to remind them. I remember this, but I do not know whether the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was in the House at the time. The then Conservative Government were engaged in secret talks with the IRA when an IRA bombing campaign was going on. That Government told the House that they were not involved in those talks, but later had to admit that they were.
	The then Opposition took the viewand John Smith was the leader of the Labour party at the timethat, even though the Government had misled the House, such difficulties were likely to exist in those circumstances. We believed that it was worth trying to overcome the situation that prevailed and get to a more peaceful future.
	There are difficult matters in all such cases, but the hon. Member for Blaby should look at what has happened in most places in Northern Ireland over the past five years. There are no troop movements in two thirds of Northern Ireland, and in the summer people can sit out in the centre of the city of Belfast in a way that they never could before. The hon. Gentleman should consider the number of people who have been killed, the general standard of life and of jobs and investment in Northern Ireland. Even with all the difficulties, the peace process has been worth it. I shall continue with it if I can.

Points of Order

Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to register the intense frustration felt by my Northern Ireland colleagues at the perceived filibustering during Northern Ireland Question Time. The Secretary of State and some of the other Northern Ireland Office Ministers gave long-winded responses and answers to questions. I think that the House noted your own frustration today, Mr. Speaker. Discussion of Question 1 went on until after 2.50 pm, and we only got as far as Question 4. In Prime Minister's questions, we got to Question 8.
	I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to register again your disapproval of long-winded answers, and to encourage those responding to questions to enable us to challenge the Northern Ireland team properly.

Mr. Speaker: I would not use the term Xlong-winded, but some of the questions were rather long, as were some of the answers. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, at Northern Ireland Question Time, not only do I have to worry about the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, but I also have to accommodate two parties from Ulster on one side of the House and one party on the other. That requires me to give a longer run to some questions, which can have an impact on how far down the Order Paper we get.
	However, the point of order gives me the opportunity to say that the shorter the questions are, the shorter the replies will be.

David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Office have grown considerably, and the growth in the size of the ministerial teams shows that Ministers are responsible for a hugely increased range of matters. I appreciate the point that you made, Mr. Speaker, about the number of parties in Northern Ireland and about how some questions will run for a certain amount of time. However, given the necessity that we deal with as many questions as possible, is not there now an overwhelming case for a significant increase in the amount of time available for Northern Ireland questions? Would not it be desirable, as we move into a new Session, to make a very significant change in that respect?

Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that these matters are not within my powers. I suggest that he approach the Leader of the House.

Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that we now have five Northern Ireland Ministers on the Treasury Bench, all of them doing important jobs and with important responsibilities? However, given that under present arrangements it is almost impractical to expect that they will get a chance to answer even one question on their various areas of responsibility, may I reinforce the point been made by the First Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I can only make the same suggestion. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take the matter up with the Leader of the House.

John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have said that I am more than happy that discussions on these matters take place through the usual channels. I would, however, like to make two points that were mistaken in the premise put forward by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). First, Northern Ireland Question Time was reduced to half an hour before devolution when there were the same number of Ministers on the Front Bench. Secondly, although of course I am open to discussion, as we always are, on bringing scrutiny to bear on these matters, we must get a balance between the need for scrutiny and the need not to create a backlog in the legislation that has previously been put through the Assembly. Much of it has already been discussed; it is very important for the good governance of Northern Ireland and the benefit of the people there.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a different matter. Tomorrow's Order Paper, as you are well aware, contains the continuation of the debate on local government finance formula grant. Bearing in mind that it is a continuation, Mr. Speaker, can you confirm that there will be no opening speeches from the Front Benches but that the maximum time will be given to the very large demand for Back-Bench speeches in that important debate, and that the Minister will only wind up the debate?

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, tomorrow's debate is billed as a continuation debate. Effectively, therefore, the opening speeches have been made. I intend to call the Minister to launch the debate, but I expect him to confine his remarks to no more than two sentences.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you clarify something? When the debate came to a premature end last week, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was speaking. Do you intend to call him to continue his speech?

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker decides these matters. The Minister will say a few words and then I will decide who will be called next.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had notification of a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), on the proposals of the advisory committee to the European Commission for a complete closure next year of the White fishery in the North sea and off the west of Scotland? As you will understand, thousands of jobs in catching and processing are at stake, and it will affect the economic infrastructure of entire areas. At this time of crisis, it would be of some use to find out whether the Government have a policy on the matter or whether we are merely drifting to disaster. There are plenty of Ministers on the Front Benchperhaps one of them would at least tell us when we can expect a statement on this vital matter.

Mr. Speaker: So far I have had no approach from a Minister. However, the hon. Gentleman can pursue the matter and I am sure that the Ministers concerned will have heard his remarks or will be able to read them in Hansard.

Waste Management Licences

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision regarding waste management licences.
	During the past few weeks I have been carrying out a detailed survey in St. Helier ward in Morden in my constituency. I undertake such surveys as one way, among others, of keeping in touch with my constituents' concerns, and I am pleased to say that I received an excellent response over the telephone, on the doorsteps and from the questionnaires posted back to me. The results show that the two main worries of people in Morden are crime, which was chosen by 31 per cent. of residents, closely followed by environmental and quality-of-life issues, such as graffiti, abandoned cars and fly tipping, which were chosen by 27 per cent. of residents. My constituents' worries are, therefore, crime and environmental crime, and I should be surprised if those worries were not mirrored in the constituency of every hon. Member.
	We ignore environmental crime at the peril of our communities. Let us make no mistake: the community that falls into the hands of the graffiti vandal, the car dumper or the fly tipper soon becomes a magnet for antisocial behaviour, including arson and drug and solvent abuse, and the fear of crime is magnified. In short, a good neighbourhood is dragged down and a good community is threatened.
	We in the House must take quality-of-life issues much more seriously and must take much more action to fight environmental crime. It is all very well to talk about such issues, but it is time that we actually took some action.
	The main aim of my Bill is to secure effective powers for local authorities to do battle with a particular group of environmental criminalsthe fly tippers: the cowboy builders who dump rubble in the rear alleys of elderly homeowners; the car wreckers who dump redundant tyres in parks and open spaces; and, worse, the unscrupulous businesses that dump hazardous waste chemicals.
	It is bemusingto say the leastthat no council in the country has the power to go to any business or high street shop that is using the public pavement as a dumping ground, to ask to see its waste licence. We should not ignore the fact that those people, who unlawfully deposit waste without a management licence or registered exemption, leach tens of millions of pounds annually from legitimate, regulated businesses, denying people the safe and protected employment conditions offered by legitimate businesses and preventing the controlled and environmentally responsible management of waste. Not only do those cowboys ride roughshod over people such as my constituents in St. Helier, but they leave those people to pick up the massive cost of cleaning up after themthrough the council tax.
	To give the House some idea of the scale of the problem locally, during the quarter April to June 2001, 4,144 cases of fly tipping were reported in the borough of Merton, some of which took more than four days of council time to clear up, distracting the council's environmental services teams from other activities. If we compare that with the same quarter this year, we see a 6 per cent. increase in fly tipping.
	Let us consider the national cost. In December 2001, BBC News reported that, according to its calculations, fly tipping was costing local authorities #100 million per annum. I was shocked to discover that the Environment Agency estimates that the figure could be as high as #150 million a year.
	Nor is the problem confined to urban areasfar from it. These days, it seems that where there is a field, there is a fly tip. An independent consultancy, Marcus Hodges Environment Ltd., reported that, in 2002, fly tipping on agricultural land was costing farmers approximately #57 million a year and that, in 2001, 10 National Trust properties in Surrey, not far from my constituency, incurred a cumulative cost of #10,000 to clear fly-tipped waste.
	My Bill would amend section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which covers duty of care as respects waste, to allow local councils the authority to demand of right the inspection of trade waste agreements, carriers' disposal notices, receipts and related documents. Local authorities, in their guise as waste collection authorities or principal litter authorities need to be given that right, which Environment Agency officers already exercise, so that smaller businesses and waste carriers can be checked locally to see whether there is any evidence or suspicion of illegal practices.
	The extension of that power to local authorities would encourage more productive co-operation between those authorities and the Environment Agency than I understand exists at present. That would provide for more efficient gathering of evidence locally, for the exchange of information and the avoidance of duplication of effort. Indeed, given that the Environment Agency is limited in its ability to be on the ground wherever and whenever fly tipping takes place and that local authorities can be much more responsive, the new arrangement would allow for stronger enforcement of the rules and would, I am sure, result in more successful prosecutions of fly tippers.
	Another aspect of the Environmental Protection Act that needs clarification is local authorities' ability to make prosecutions under section 33 of the Act, which covers prohibitions on the unauthorised or harmful depositing, treatment or disposal of waste. I understand that many local authorities are not aware that, although they cannot ask to see licences, they have the power to prosecute and fine for fly tipping. It would therefore be another aim of my Bill to require clear written guidance from the Government to clear up that anomaly and clarify section 33, and to require a clear education programme to ensure that all local authorities and their legal departments have a full understanding of their powers under the Act.
	The Environmental Services Association, the trade body of the UK's waste management industry, has made a proposal which I support and which I put forward in this Bill: that the Govt should establish a central fund to help the victims of fly tipping and to improve the quality of data. Government officials would manage the fund and, to apply, each landowner would be required to complete a standard form describing the extent and type of materials fly-tipped. Officials would record each incident and aggregate the data to identify specific fly-tipping hotspots. Resources would then be made available to help compensate the landowner and to try to catch the perpetrators.
	I very much welcome the intention of the Environmental Services Association, which wants to set up a fund of #1 billion per annum to provide new resource management facilities, such as composting and materials reclamation facilities. Those will be badly needed if we are to keep pace with the amount of waste that individuals and businesses are producing, and also if we are serious about stepping up our recycling efforts. Thus to keep that ESA investment flowing, one essential requirement is that waste goes where it should gointo the legitimate, regulated waste management facilities, with zero tolerance of fly tipping. In other words, dump the fly tippers. That is one strong reason for increasing the powers of local authorities to deal more efficiently and effectively with fly tippers.
	There are many other strong reasons to support this Bill, and for me, the strongest are the concerns of my constituents in Mitcham and Morden.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Tony Banks, Caroline Flint, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Barbara Follett, Margaret Moran, Ms Oona King, Jeff Ennis, Mr. Graham Allen, Martin Linton and Linda Perham.

Waste Management Licences

Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision regarding waste management licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 196].

Opposition Day
	  
	[19th Allotted Day1st Part]

National Lottery

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

John Whittingdale: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that since its creation in 1994 by the last Conservative Government, the National Lottery has raised over #12 billion for good causes; believes that the principle that Lottery money should not be used to fund projects that are the responsibility of the Government has been undermined by the establishment of the New Opportunities Fund and that this has also significantly reduced the money available for original good causes; further notes that grants made to organisations like the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns and the Communities Empowerment Network have destroyed public trust in the Lottery, with the result that ticket sales are falling rapidly; and calls upon the Government to take urgent action to restore public confidence and to return the Lottery to its original purpose of raising money to support deserving causes that command widespread public support.
	It is a pleasure to find that my first outing in this Chamber in my new brief should be to debate with the Secretary of State an issue that I know both of us believe to be of great importance. In her recent consultation paper, the Secretary of State said that after eight years it was now the right time to review the operation of the national lottery. I agree, although recent events have made the need for that review even more urgent. I hope that this debate will help to inform the consultation on which the Govt are embarked.
	It is worth saying that the national lottery has been a fantastic success. It was created by the last Conservative Government to raise money for good causes, while at the same time providing the enjoyment of a modest flutter with the admittedly small chance of winning a life-changing amount of money.

Bob Russell: It has been a major success.

John Whittingdale: It has indeed, despite the fact that the Liberal Democrats voted at every stage against the Bill that introduced it, I believe.

George Osborne: On that point, is my hon. Friend aware of any Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament supporting lottery grants in their constituency, having voted against the lottery when it was introduced?

John Whittingdale: That is an interesting point. Indeed, I look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat spokesman try to defend that very point later in the debate.
	To get back to its success, the national lottery has surpassed all expectations of how much money it might raise. It was originally suggested by the then Home Secretary, Ken Baker, when he proposed the idea that
	Xonce fully developed, it could raise up to #1 billion for good causes.
	Less than eight years after its establishment, it has already raised over #12 billion.
	Grants awarded by the national lottery are transforming the landscape and have provided a boost to arts, sports and heritage that could never have been achieved from reliance on the taxpayer alone.Some of the major projects that have been supported by the lottery have been an unqualified success: Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh, the Eden project in Cornwall and the Tate Modern. Others have not been so successful. The millennium dome, which used up #630 million of lottery money, is perhaps a case in point. However, in many ways, it is the thousands of smaller grants that have really made a difference.
	There have been many arguments in the Chamber about whether the distribution of grants has been fair. We may hear them again this afternoon, but every hon. Member will know of organisations and projects in his or her constituency that have benefited from lottery funds. Village halls, sports pitches, museums, galleries and community centres have all been transformed thanks to lottery money. Many will argue over the record of the Conservative Government, but few would deny that one of their lasting achievements was the establishment of a national lottery in the United Kingdom.
	One of the fundamental principles of the lottery from its beginning was that the money raised should be used to finance projects that were unlikely to be regarded as of sufficient priority to get financial support from the taxpayer. Both sides have always accepted the principle of additionalitythat lottery money should not be used to fund core spending programmes that should be paid for by the taxpayer. Indeed, in the Government's own White Paper published five years ago, the Prime Minister himself wrote:
	XWe don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities,
	yet the creation in 1998 of a sixth good cause, the new opportunities fund, was in direct breach of the additionality principle. It was created specifically to fund health, environment and education projects, which traditionally have always been regarded as the responsibility of Government.

Colin Challen: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that a manifesto commitment should be implemented, that Labour put it to the electorate in 1997 that health would be one of our lottery-funded targets, and that that has produced great improvements and been welcomed by the public?

John Whittingdale: I heartily disagree with a large part of the Labour party manifesto, including that particular provision. Just because it was in the manifesto does not necessarily make it the right thing to do.

Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman forgets a fundamental fact: in a democracy, the people decide. The people very clearly decided that they wanted our manifesto commitments, not the hon. Gentleman's.

John Whittingdale: In a democracy, it is the Opposition's job to oppose what they think is wrong, which is what we shall continue to do.

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving waywe are having such a reliable hat trick. Does he accept that, most importantly for constituencies such as mine, the new opportunities fund has been one of few ways to ensure that money is spread more equitably throughout the country?

John Whittingdale: I accept that a large part of what the new opportunities fund has done is extremely welcome. My point is not that the money should not have been spent, but that lottery money should not have been spent. I shall give one or two examples.
	The new opportunities fund has financed information technology training for teachers and the treatment and prevention of coronary heart disease and cancer. The Prime Minister got up at the Labour party conference to announce that #750 million would be spent on improving sports facilities in schools, but it was only afterwards that we discovered that that money would come from the national lottery via the new opportunities fund. None of those are bad thingsthey are extremely desirablebut they represent activities that most people would believe are core responsibilities of the Government.
	The new opportunities fund also explicitly breaks the arm's length principle, and I suspect that we may hear quite a lot about that this afternoon. Unlike the other distributing bodies, the new opportunities fund receives direct instructions from Ministers about the projects that it should finance.

Claire Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the Omnibus survey, which took place in July this year and which indicated that 59 per cent. of the public wanted the national lottery's proceeds to be spent on health and that 53 per cent. wanted the lottery to spend money on education? Does he not believe that that shows that the public want some national lottery funds to be spent on those two areas?

John Whittingdale: I have a great mistrust of opinion polls, but if people understood that the Government were using national lottery money to pay for projects that would otherwise rightly be paid for out of central Government funds, the hon. Lady might find that those figures would be rather different.

Gregory Barker: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a scandalously long wait for radiotherapy treatment in my part of East Sussex and Kent? Some women in my constituency have had to wait up to 24 weeks for post-operative radiotherapy care. Much needed linear accelerators are now being bought, but the money is coming from lottery funds via the new opportunities fund, to which he refers. Many of my constituents find it absolutely obscene that such core health facilities are being funded from lottery money.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend cites a very good example, which demonstrates that the Government are completely failing to deliver in the health serviceand lottery funds will not bail them out.
	I shall now return to the lottery's original purpose. Perhaps most damaging of all is the impact of the new opportunities fund on the other good causes. When the lottery was first set up, each of the original good causessport, the arts, heritage, charities and the millennium celebrationtook an equal share of the proceeds. However, since the new opportunities fund was created, it has taken a steadily bigger share of the cake. Instead of the 25 per cent. that sports, art, heritage and charity bodies expected to receive when the Millennium Commission was wound up, they now only get 16.7 per cent., but the new opportunities fund receives a thirdtwice as much as any other cause. That has significantly reduced the money available for the original good causes.
	The community fund's grant income has dropped from #366 million in 1997 to #296 million last year, and it predicts a further fall to #213 million over the next three years. The income of the Arts Council of England has dropped by the same amount, as has that of Sport England. Falling income has meant that many applications for deserving projects now have to be turned down. In the first round of the arts capital programme, #400 million worth of applications were received for just #88 million of available funds. According to Sport England:
	Xannual Lottery income has been falling and one of the main reasons for this drop is the creation of the New Opportunities Fund.
	It continues:
	XAny further reduction in Sport England's annual Lottery income could have serious implications for English sport. At a time when many communities recreational deprivation is acute, falling Lottery revenue will mean that a growing number of much-needed projects will not go ahead.

Christopher Chope: Would my hon. Friend accept that one way of solving this problem would be to introduce competition and choice into the process, denationalising the monopoly national lotteryas it is at the momentand allowing rival lotteries to be set up, perhaps by sports organisations or health organisations? Is not that the way forward, rather than the dirigiste approach being adopted by the Government?

John Whittingdale: There are already possibilities for societies to have their own lotteries. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's suggestion is a good one, and I hope that it will be considered. There is no doubt that we need to do something to restore public trust in the national lottery, which is the main point that I want to make.
	The good causes are suffering not just because the Government are now siphoning off lottery money to pay for programmes that are core responsibilities and that should be financed by the taxpayer: falling ticket sales mean that they are suffering from a double squeeze. There may be many reasons why ticket sales have declined. It is beyond doubt, however, that one factor is a growing concern that money raised by the lottery is going to support causes that are highly controversial and that do not command public support. Two causes in particular have received considerable publicity in recent weeks.
	The decision by the community fund to award #340,000 to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns should never have been made. Far from being an organisation concerned with the welfare of those seeking asylum, it is a political organisation that has called for the overthrow of Britain's asylum laws. I do not usually come to the defence of the Home Secretary, but that organisation's claim that he is Xcolluding with fascism is one that most people would find unacceptable, and even I would not go as far as the body's organiser, who has stated that new Labour is Xthe heart of evil. The organisation will have received #740,000 of public money raised by the lottery once its current grant goes ahead.
	It is hardly surprising that the Home Secretary was on the phone to the Secretary of State three times in one day to protest. We have been told that the subsequent talks between the Department and the community fund were Xfrosty. Even after the grant was confirmed yesterday, the Secretary of State issued a statement saying that she Xstill had doubts about this particular organisation. I suspect that the Home Secretary might have put it a bit more robustly. We are now assured that the organisation will cease its political activities, but it is hard to imagine what else an organisation whose raison d'tre is to oppose our asylum laws is likely to do.

Evan Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that to qualify for community fund funding charities should not have political views? On that basis, organisations based in my constituency, such as Oxfam, would find it very difficult to access lottery funding. Surely recipients of such funding have a right to different views from those of the Government as long as the funding goes to core charitable causes that are separate from those political views.

John Whittingdale: Of course, many charities have political views, but the core purpose of this particular organisation is to oppose the legislation passed by the House. It is a political organisation, and it is waging a political campaign. Most people would regard such a body as not appropriate to receive funding from the national lottery.
	That is not an isolated example. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills rightly expressed her anger that an appeals panel had overruled a head teacher's decision to exclude two pupils for threatening to kill their teacher. It was revealed shortly afterwards, however, that the Communities Empowerment Network, which had given legal support to the two pupils, had received #200,000 from the community fund. Once again, an organisation that actively campaigns against the actions and policies of Ministers is funded by national lottery grants.

Andrew Turner: Did my hon. Friend hear the Secretary of State on XNewsnight yesterday busily putting herself at arm's length from the community fund and these nonsensical grants, on the ground that she had to allow the fund to make its own decisions? Did not the Government back the community fund's priorities and appoint most of the people on it who hand the money out?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is absolutely rightthat point is at the core of my argument. Although we support the arm's length principle, he is right to point out that the community fund operates under guidelines set by the Government.

Chris Bryant: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he has not once in his life been lobbied by a charity? Is it not true that charities have, at some point, tried to put their arguments extremely forcefully to every one of us in the Chamber and that they are thoroughly involved in the political process? Many Labour Members regularly welcome that.

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman should put his argument to the Government. They have made it plain that they do not agree with the grants that have been made, especially the one to the organisation campaigning against our asylum laws. They have disowned it, so he should direct his comments first to the Secretary of State and to the Home Secretary, who are absolutely right to say that it is not an appropriate body to receive lottery funding.
	Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that the work of the community fund is not valuable; the vast majority of grants that it awards are to organisations that I thoroughly applaud. The community fund's work in supporting local causes, such as carers associations, village halls, community centres and citizens advice bureaux, has done enormous good. Only last month, I was informed that the community fund had awarded #258,000 to the Steeple village hall trust in my constituency. I do not believe that that happened just because I had been appointed to my present position six weeks earlier.
	The majority of the thoroughly deserving causes that have been supported have been eclipsed by a number of awards to politically correct organisations that command little public support. The community fund should, of course, support less popular charitable organisations that find it harder to raise voluntary contributions, but awards to help farmers in Peru to breed meatier guinea pigs for eating, that support the staging of a lesbian and gay pantomime in Manchester or that strengthen the contribution of women to the peace movement in the great lakes region of Africa simply undermine public confidence that the money raised from lottery tickets is used to help the causes that they wish to support.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is precisely because it has come to the public's attention that the lottery is giving money to such disreputable causes that there has been a decline in ticket sales. My newsagent in my constitutuency lost 10 per cent. of sales when the information was revealed. Do not such grants stand in sharp contrast to the lack of support that the lottery gives to many deserving veterans' and ex-service men's organisations that desperately try to help those who risked their lives or suffered for their country? St. Dunstan's is a case in point. It has been refused a #600,000 lottery grant, and the whole country knows what a fantastic job it does for those who were blinded in the service of their country.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. I am not suggesting that the work of some of the organisations that have been offered support is not worthy. However, I think that most people would find it a fairly strange set of priorities to give them money when other organisations that command universal support and are regarded as thoroughly deserving are refused funding.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that it is possible that no group that works with refugees and asylum seekers supports Government policy. On that basis, does he argue that none of those organisations should receive lottery funding because of the worry that they might be forced to change their views and agree with the Government to qualify? I hope he agrees that that is not the civil society that we want.

John Whittingdale: I do not want to go into too much detail on individual applications, but there is a difference between organisations that work to improve people's welfare and those that run political campaigns. The latter group is inappropriate for lottery funding, but no one is saying that organisations dedicated to improving people's welfare do not deserve support.
	The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) goes to the core of the problem. The situation is made worse by the refusal of a large number of applications made by organisations that everyone would agree are deserving. The anger expressed by Simon Weston a few weeks ago about the refusal of applications from service charities, such as the Royal British Legion and St. Dunstan's, is widely shared. In the introduction to the Department's publication XLottery Funding: The First Seven Years, the Secretary of State wrote:
	XPublic confidence in the integrity of the Lottery is the key to its success. It is the knowledge that their money is put to good use which keeps people playing.
	Yet it is precisely that public confidence that has been so badly shaken by the revelations about some of the organisations that benefit from lottery grants.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that he supports the arm's-length principle, but the Conservative motion calls for Government intervention. Does he agree that there is a contradiction in those two positions? If so, what would he do to resolve the problem?

John Whittingdale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no contradiction. I will explain what the Government are responsible for and what they should do. It is not fair to place the blame for the crisis in the lottery on Lady Brittan and the board of the community fund. Although it is correct that the Government do not decide individual applications, they do set the guidelines under which the fund operates. Ministers changed the guidelines in 1999 and the emphasis was shifted. The community fund recently published a new strategic plan, from which it becomes clear that the focus will be on causes that are more politically correct. Ministers have been involved in that decision. Lady Brittan and her colleagues are simply following orders.

Matthew Green: Was the Daily Mail right to encourage its readers to Xvent their justifiable anger on Lady Brittan? Was it right to give the address of the community fund, to which people sent hate mail?

John Whittingdale: I have no hesitation in condemning without reservation the letters sent to Lady Brittan. The Daily Mail has made it clear that it, too, condemns the letters, and it has told its readers to write not to Lady Brittan, but to the newspaper. It has since received about 40,000 letters. That is a serious indication of the level of public concern. No one would hesitate in condemning racists who send hate mail, but there is genuine public concern, which we need to address to return to the original principles of the lottery.

Chris Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the changes to ministerial guidelines in 1999 involved the following: that the lottery distributors should take account of the needs of areas of particular social deprivation; that they should pay particular attention to the needs of children and young people; that they should pay attention to the needs of environmental sustainability; and that they should pay attention to the fairness of geographical spread of lottery grants? With which of those changes does he disagree?

John Whittingdale: I do not disagree with any of those objectives, but the right hon. Gentleman confirms that the community fund operates under ministerial guidance. If we have, as I believe, reached the point at which some of its grants are being given to causes a long way removed from the national lottery's original purpose, it is the responsibility of the Ministers who operate the guidelines to ensure that the community fund concentrates its attention on causes that command widespread public support.

Chris Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. Ministers do not operate the guidelines but put them in place, and under the legislation they have of necessity to be broad. Our Conservative predecessors established most of the guidelines, and we made the changes that I have just described. It is up to the lottery distributors independently to operate the guidelines. What problem does the hon. Gentleman have with them?

John Whittingdale: I am saying that because Ministers set the guidelines they have a broad responsibility for the way in which the community fund operates. The degree of public concern is evidence of the widespread view that the community fund is not operating as it should, so Ministers should revisit the guidelines to ensure that the fund returns to supporting causes that command universal support. That is the way to restore public confidence in the national lottery, as hon. Members on both sides of the House wish.

Julie Kirkbride: I was interested by the contribution of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Although we want a geographical spread to ensure that every community feels that it has gained something from the national lottery, it is not obvious to me why young people should be singled out for support when a great many deserving old people and military personnel may feel that they should benefit in accordance with the guidelines set by those distributing the funds, not by Ministers. Does my hon. Friend agree?

John Whittingdale: I do. The community fund might take account of the widespread public view that the lottery has not given sufficient priority to deserving causes such as veterans and former military personnel, and Ministers might suggest, in their guidelines, that the fund should focus on those causes in future.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that he is filling with dismay people in my community who have benefited from the largesse of the community fund? He is right to say that the guidelines are broad and that the operational detail is down to the distributor.

John Whittingdale: I entirely agree. I have already made it clear that I welcome the vast majority of grants made by the community fund. However, it is necessary to deal with the problem of public perception, and, through issuing guidelines, Ministers have some control over that matter.

Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Whittingdale: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I should move on.
	The point at issue is what has happened to lottery sales. Having already been in decline, they are now plummeting. In July, it was reported that public disenchantment with the good causes has led to a slump in sales that could lead to proceeds being over #1 billion below forecasts. Sales have fallen by 12 per cent since the peak in 199798, just before the Government set up the new opportunities fund. Last weekend, takings hit a record low for a weekend rollover draw. Previously, rollovers could be expected to lead to ticket sales of more than #70 million. On Saturday, the figure was barely over #40 million.
	In July, the Secretary of State announced a review of lottery funding. I welcome her recognition of the fact that action needs to be taken. Some of the suggestions that she has made, such as establishing micro grants to be delivered at local level with the minimum of red tape, are sensible; others, such as the merger of the distributing bodies, are not. The suggestion that purchasers might tick a box to indicate the type of good cause that they want to support also raises serious difficulties. However, nothing in the Secretary of State's consultation paper addresses the real problem. Public confidence in the merits of the good causes has been undermined. People resent the fact that their money is being used to finance projects for which the Government should pay, and that it is being given to organisations that they do not support.
	The Secretary of State must act now to restore public trust. She should issue new guidelines.

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend said, the Government have commented on micro-grants in local areas. Does he agree that it would be better if the money for the community fund and the new opportunities fund, which accounts for a substantial proportion of good cause funding, were genuinely delegated to local areas? Spending the moneys raised for good causes on local causes that attract local support might restore confidence in the distribution and encourage people to play the lottery.

John Whittingdale: That is an interesting suggestion. My hon. Friend is right that the priority is restoring people's confidence that the money raised through purchasing tickets will go to worthy causes, especially those in local communities that they want to support. If there were a way in which to achieve that without the bureaucracy of ticking boxes, it would be worth examining.
	The priority is to restore public trust. The Secretary of State should issue new guidelines to the community fund to ensure that the charities to which it gives money command widespread public support. She should also stop raiding the till to pay for Government programmes that the Chancellor is unwilling to finance.
	The national lottery has been an enormous success but it is under threat. Unless action is taken quickly, the original good causes, which we all support, will be the losers.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, To leave out from XHouse to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	Xwelcomes the fact that the Lottery has so far generated over #12 billion for investment in good causes and has brought much needed support for sport, the arts and heritage, charities, and organisations dealing with health, education and the environment; notes that the Lottery has created funds for projects to mark the new millennium; also notes that the typical constituency has received millions of pounds of Lottery funding, often transforming local communities and their economies; welcomes the contribution that Lottery funding has made throughout the United Kingdom; believes that Lottery players can have full confidence in the Lottery and in Lottery fund distribution; and welcomes the current review being undertaken by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Lottery continues to make the fullest possible contribution to the nation.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new position as Front-Bench spokesman. However, I am surprised that the Conservative party has chosen to ask for a debate on the national lottery today. Conservative Members did not ask for such a debate when the Baltic Mill in Gateshead opened to international acclaim, or when the lottery-funded Commonwealth games put Manchester and the United Kingdom on the world map for sporting excellence. They did not request it in March when I announced that #169 million of lottery money would be targeted at the deprived areas that fared least well from the lottery, or in July when I announced the most fundamental review since the lottery's inception.
	Conservative Members chose this week simply because they have read a lot in the papers about a specific grant by the community fund, which is funded by the lottery. That is not profound, but it is a good example of the bandwagon tendency in the Conservative party. It tends to hang around, wait for a passing issue of public anxiety and leap aboard. Conservative Members did not care about the national lottery previously, and they will not in future, once the bandwagon has moved on.
	Perhaps the Conservative party wants to be considered the nice party, but the timing of the debate shows that it is still the nasty party. Moreover, to connoisseurs and historians, it remains the stupid party. Although Conservative Members have called for the debate for all the wrong reasons, I am glad that they did so. It gives Members of all parties a chance to condemn the vile campaign of racist hatred and abuse against the chair and staff of the community fund. Human excrement and needles sent through the post, threats of physical violence: all in all, that is the disgusting face of racial thuggery masquerading as concern for the lottery. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman eventually condemned those racist attacks in his opening remarks, and I hope that he and his colleagues will do so without reservation.
	Before moving on, I would like to dwell a little longer on the individual case of the community fund.

Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make a little more progress.
	As the House knows, the community fund yesterday confirmed a grant of #336,000 to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. The grant will be paid subject to a number of conditions that will address directly the concerns that I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had about the original grant. The funds will be issued to support individual case work, not doctrinaire campaigning, and they will not be used to fund support for people who are being deported because they have criminal convictions. The chief executive of the community fund made it clear in a television interview last night that the money will not be paid unless those conditions are met.

Andrew Turner: The right hon. Lady is reading her speech very well, but she seems to have ignored the point made by the representative of that organisationon the television programme on which she herself appeared last nightwho said that the money was very welcome because it would pay salaries this month. What control is there over the payment of those salaries to those people this month?

Tessa Jowell: Responsibility for ensuring the proper spending of this grant within the terms under which it has been awarded now rests with the community fund. That is one of the many illustrations of the arm's-length principle to which the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred, and which the House is united in believing to be the proper principle to govern lottery grants and their distribution. A consequence of the arm's-length principle is that I doubt that it would be possible to go through a list of the grants awarded by any of the 15 distributors and find unanimity, either in the House or in our constituencies. By definition, the arm's-length principle means that government and parliamentary lobbying is removed from having a direct influence on grants. This is a cross-party principle, and I believe that there is cross-party consensus that it is right.

Henry Bellingham: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make a little more progress.
	The community fund has made its decision without interference from me or anyone else, and whatever my own views about this grant, I will defend utterly the fund's right to make its decision without any political interference. As I have already said, there is long-established cross-party support for the principle that lottery funding decisions are taken at arm's length from government, out of the reach of meddling by politicians. That means that lottery distributors will sometimes fund grants about which we are passionately supportive and, at other times, they will fund grants with which we violently disagree.

Henry Bellingham: In the light of the fact that there are about seven different fundsor more, if we take into account Scotland and Walesdoes the Secretary of State feel that it might make sense to have one overall strategic body in charge of the different funds, the chief executive of which would report directly to her? Would that not make life a bit easier?

Tessa Jowell: There might well be a case for looking at rationalising the number of lottery distributors, but not in such a way that would put politicians in control of making decisions about how lottery grants are made and what those grants were.
	Having said all that, I now consider this matter closed. We should learn the lessons of this saga, and we should move on. The community fund, too, is learning the lessons. It is producing guidance that was not available to the commissioners when they made that award. It will produce guidance on the nature of political activity engaged in by organisations applying for grants. Those that encourage the breaking of the law will not be eligible for funds. The community fund has also asked the National Audit Office to review its processes in the particular case of the grant to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. I welcome that; but there is one thing I do not intend to ask the fund to do.

Mark Francois: If the matter is now closed, as the Secretary of State says, does she expect lottery ticket sales to go up again?

Tessa Jowell: I certainly believe that if weas a country, as a Government, as a Parliament and as constituency MPsfocus more on the way in which lottery investment has changed and improved people's lives, rather than identifying specific grants that are in themselves bad cases and generalising about the performance of the lottery, lottery sales will increase again and public trust in the lottery will begin to be restored.
	I want to make clear what I will not ask the fund to do. I will not ask it to end its support for the most marginalised groups and individuals in our society. I will not ask it to end the support5 per cent. of its total allocationthat is given to drug addicts, homeless people, people with AIDS and, yes, asylum seekers and migrants. The lottery gives us a great and unique opportunity to help build a strong civil societya society in which we can live and thrive; a society that is pluralistic and mostly tolerant. It is in all our interests for marginalised people to find a place in our society, and there should be no bar in principle to their eligibility for funds to support and sustain services provided for them.

Sandra Osborne: My right hon. Friend speaks of marginalised groups. Is she aware that 20 years ago groups such as Women's Aid, which supports abused women and their children, were marginalised? That was not a mainstream issue, as it is now. It was not generally accepted to be a worthwhile cause. Indeed, such groups were regarded by certain peoplefor instance, some Conservative Membersas nutters. They would certainly not have attracted the support of funding bodies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important for vulnerable groups to have a voice through the lottery?

Tessa Jowell: Yes. In their day, the suffragettes were probably regarded as politically correct. Certainly this party, when in opposition, was denigrated for making efforts to get more women into Parliament, in order to secure a Parliament that would be more representative of society as a whole. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the way in which grants to progressive voluntary organisations can in turn improve the cohesion and solidarity of society more generally.

Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State will have heard my earlier intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). While I do not think anyone present would describe ex-service people as marginalised, will she give us some idea of the Government's view on the eligibility of the many wonderful ex-service organisations, which do such wonderful work? Do the Government really think it fair that they should receive so little of the cake?
	The right hon. Lady is at pains to say where she thinks the priorities should lie. Perhaps she will say something about where she thinks service charities come into the equation, because they do not receive Government money.

Tessa Jowell: I will come on to that point. It is worth recording that some 200 veterans' organisations have already had #1 million in grant from the community fund. I welcome the fact that Simon Weston is to be invited to meet members of the community fund board in order to discuss with them lottery funding for veterans' groups. At its heart, lottery money exists to make a difference, to add value to other Government and voluntary sector activity and to be a form of venture capital for communities that cannot get funds through more orthodox routes. Sometimes it will take risks, therefore by definition some grants will be more successful and popular than others, but without that element of risk the lottery would simply become an agent of the status quo.
	The lottery must support and reflect society, so it must change as society changes. If we are to retain public confidence it must adapt or die a slow death. To take one example, Gateshead council and the Arts Council took a risk when they commissioned Anthony Gormley, one of our greatest sculptors, to build the Angel of the North. It was ridiculed in the media, but now we have one of the most stunning pieces of public art in Europe and the north-east has an icon of its regeneration and its renewed regional pride. Who now would say that the Angel of the North was a mistake? It was a risk, but one that paid off handsomely.
	The previous Administration left us a legacy of a lottery that had the power to transform the country, and it has. It has provided #13 billion to good causes ranging from the Gateshead millennium bridge and the Manchester Commonwealth games to the Northumberland family camping group which gives holidays to low-income families. There are hundreds of other examples in each and every one of our constituencies.

Candy Atherton: My right hon. Friend has mentioned many examples of the national lottery making a difference to communities. Does she agree that in Cornwall the Eden project has been the very beacon, along with objective 1 status, which has made a tremendous difference to the whole economy of the county?

Tessa Jowell: I certainly do. My hon. Friend has been an unstinting advocate and supporter of the Eden project which is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the countryanother successful investment by the lottery. In addition the lottery has provided more than 320,000 child care places, 156 neighbourhood nurses, 300 healthy living centres, which serve more than 30 per cent. of the population in some of our most deprived communities and more than 570 pieces of cancer diagnostic equipment. Which of those do the Opposition regret the lottery paying for?
	All in all tens of thousands of grants have been made to improve the lives of millions of people.

Matthew Green: We heard earlier from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that one of the Government's priorities for lottery distribution was young people, yet in the west midlands the regional board of the community fund has removed young people from its list of five priorities. Does the Secretary of State have something to say about that? Does she regard it as the correct decision? From what Conservative Members have been saying from a sedentary position about young people, they clearly do not consider them a deserving cause.

Tessa Jowell: I am surprised that that regional board has taken that decision, because 26 per cent. of the community fund's income goes to children and young people; 12 per cent. goes to older people and their carers and 33 per cent. goes to disabled people.

Colin Challen: On Sunday lunchtime, I was at Morley rugby club to present a cheque for #60,000#30,000 from the lottery and #30,000 from a local company under the Sportsmatch schemeto help the club go to into schools over the next three years to encourage young people, both boys and girls, to take up rugby. The Opposition might argue that that should be done by schoolsthat it is a state function. Yet here we have an example of the lottery arrangements that they decry helping young people.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend provides a good example from his constituency, and he has campaigned tirelessly for fair shares of lottery allocation to constituencies across the country. His example shows clearly how the lottery can fund sport as a force for good and a force for community cohesion, in his constituency and beyond.
	Seven years ago, Britain was a different kind of country. The fact that we now have one of the most diverse and exciting cultural scenes in Europe is in no small part due to the success of the lottery. It is why the Sydney Olympics gave Britain the biggest medal tally since the 1920s and why every school in the country has books that it could not afford before. It is whyas my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) saidthe Eden project is revitalising the economy of Cornwall, giving us one of the greatest centres for environmental learning in the world. It is why Childline has a new home, where it can continue to help abused children. It is why Belfast has a new 10,000-seat arena and a science centre that is helping to regenerate the whole city. We are helping unite people through sport, education and having fun. The list is endless but I use it to illustrate a point.
	The Tories gave us a politician-proof lottery, for which they deserve credit. But there were flaws in the original design of the lottery because it was also people-proof. People had, and still have, too little say in the allocation of funds. Under the Tories, the lottery focused on big capital projects, with 97 per cent. of lottery money in 199596 spent on such projects. That was reduced to 35 per cent. by February this year. Lottery funds were not spent on the areas that needed them most; the most deprived and needy areas and the places with fewest facilities.
	In 1998, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), re-oriented the lottery towards people and communities.

Andy Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local organisations found the process difficult? In my area, the sports clubs that were successful were tennis clubs and others with professional support on their management committees. Those who were most deprived were the clubs that most needed the money. The biggest change that we made was to ensure that there were fair shares. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that that was the right move at the time.

Tessa Jowell: It was the right move at the time. We have made more progress in getting a proper and equitable distribution of lottery funds, but there is still more to do.
	The lottery does not belong to the Government, to the lottery distributors or to Camelot. It belongs to the people who play the lottery, week in and week out, who play in the hope that their dreams will come true. When we spend lottery proceeds on good causes, we are giving back to the people what is already theirs: their inheritance.

Julie Kirkbride: It would be a shame if the right hon. Lady finished her remarks without offering some clarification. She denigrated the Conservative Government for not giving people enough choice, but surely she approves of the capital project spending for the millennium, to which she has just paid tribute in her speech. Can we make it clear that that was a considerable achievement on the part of the Conservative Government, and not to be denigrated?

Tessa Jowell: I gave generous praise to the previous Government for their role in starting the lottery, but I also made it clear that the lottery had become too heavily focused on funding capital projects, to the exclusion of the range of community projects and support for voluntary organisations that we have now secured for the lottery.
	Because the lottery belongs to the people of this country we owe it to lottery playersmany of whom pay to play it out of their most marginal incometo ensure that their money is used wisely for the benefit of the whole nation. Our 1998 reforms have opened the way to massive investment in communities: #300 million for healthy living centres to tackle the underlying causes of ill-health; #750 million to transform the quality of sports and PE facilities across the country for schools and their communities; #200 million for after-school learning and summer camps; and #160 million for those areas that have done least well from the lottery. I pay tribute to the Members of Parliament from those areas, who have pressed their case so effectively. They made their case well for the good causes in their constituencies, and we listened. Because the lottery is strong, because people can have confidence in it, and because it is flexible and responsive, many good causes in those constituencies will now benefit. All in all, that will give everyone the chance that the lucky take for granted. Such a grant does not replace Government spendingit complements it.

Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make some progress. I do accept that this distinctionthe so-called principle of additionalityis a fine one to draw, but draw it we do. If we were not a Government who drew that distinction, people would not have seen, for instance, the investment in the sure start programme that we made in the past four years.
	The review that I established in July will take a long, hard look at the way in which the lottery operates. I expect it to be radical in scope and no-holds-barred in its analysis. It will plot a route map for the lottery in the future. It will look at how to award the lottery licence in the future, and consider whether there are too many distributors. Do they complement each other's work, or do they overlap? It will also consider how to strengthen public understanding of how the lottery works, and what is does with the public's money.
	Some problems we have identified already. We know that it can be too difficult for some groups to apply for grants. The process can be too long and too complex. We know that the poorest areas should receive a greater slice of the cake. The fair shares programme will distribute #169 million to areas of deprivation that have not fared well from the lottery. It is worth recording that coalfield communities, which fared very badly in terms of their share of lottery funding, have seen such income rise by 50 per cent. in the past four years.
	We know that the lottery should be democratised, and that the people who play the lottery should have a greater say in how its proceeds are used. For politicians and bureaucrats, asking people what they want can be a painful business, but we must not be afraid and we must not shy away from asking searching questions.

Caroline Flint: I intervene because my right hon. Friend mentioned coalmining communities, one of which I represent. Does she agree that delivering the substantial funds created by the lottery is a learning process? The Government have been prepared to listen to the problems faced by some communities, and to make changes when and where necessary. Is that not a strength, rather than a weakness?

Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree. We mustand willbuild on the success of the lottery in changing the landscape of arts and sports funding in Britain. It has put culture and communities back at the heart of our country, and in that way put right the contempt for both expressed over the previous 18 years.
	I am considering a number of ways to bring democracy to the lottery. There are many practical obstacles to overcome, but the principle is secure.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State has referred to many distinct communities and areas. She has not so far mentioned rural areas, even though such areas often have the fewest facilities. There has been valuable support under the community fund for village halls and clubs, for example, which give a sense of community focus, but that support has diminished. Does the right hon. Lady agree that further resources should be made available for village halls in rural areas from the new opportunities fund?

Tessa Jowell: I have two points to make in response to that intervention. First, the difficulty of securing lottery funding for village halls is an example of why we must get lottery distributors to work together more closely and collaboratively. Secondly, the fair shares programme has sought to tackle the low level of lottery funding in deprived communities. There will soon be an announcementif such an announcement has not been made alreadythat that programme will be extended to rural areas, as should be the case. Each lottery distributor has a responsibility to ensure that the interests of rural communities in pursuit of the equity to which I have referred are properly reflected in the way that lottery funds are distributed.
	I am considering a number of ways in which the practical obstacles to the greater involvement of players in the lottery can be overcome, but the principle is secure. In connection with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the review is important because the lottery must show that it has the capacity to adapt and change in accordance with the circumstances in which it operates.
	The lottery's future depends on public confidence in its operation. That is why it can never stand still. We must prove to people every day that their lottery pounds are well spent. Whether or not we play the national lottery, we all win in some way or other.
	We will maintain the lottery as a powerful force for good in this country. We take very seriously the bond of trust that exists between the lottery and the people of this country. Despite the Opposition carping from the sidelines, we will give the lottery back to the people of this country.

Bob Russell: First, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) for having the decency to praise the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party. It is a long time since a senior Conservative politician has uttered such praise.
	However, I felt that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was very ill at ease when he made his contribution. He is a decent man, but I draw the House's attention to the 27 words in the Opposition's otherwise excellent motion which I suggest have been inserted to appeal to the racist tendencies of the Daily Mail. The motion, which otherwise would be likely to command respect around the Chamber, is thereby contaminated.
	There is no doubt that the national lottery has been of great benefit to the people of the United Kingdom since it was launched in November 1994, notwithstanding any objections and reservations that may have been expressed at the time by the Methodist tendency of the Liberal Democrat party. Since then, nearly #12 billion has been raised for good causes, and every one of the communities that we represent has been improved as a result. We have new community centres, sports facilities, cultural projects and heritage centres, all as a direct result of lottery funding. For that, we must thank the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon.

Peter Duncan: Is the Methodist tendency in the hon. Gentleman's party still prevalent, and is that why they are boycotting his speech?

Bob Russell: I commend the hon. Gentleman for that wise observation. However, I am pleased to say that we command far more respect north of the border than does his party.
	We should be grateful for the support of the people who buy ticketsabout 60 per cent. of the populationand to those who have spent lottery grants effectively to the benefit of all our communities. Of course, there have been times when some have said that lottery money has not been spent wisely. For the most part, however, the money raised and spent has been invested in improving the quality of life for just about everyone. This debate should be set against the background of that Major success.
	The thousands of charities and organisations that have applied for, received and spent lottery money since 1994 should be congratulated on what they have done. The volunteers and paid staff of various organisations should be applauded for helping our top athletes achieve the medals to which the Secretary of State has referred, which have made this country so proud. They should be applauded for running our local clubs and improving access and participation for people, whatever their race, age or ability. Let us make no mistakemany of these projects would never have seen the light of day or got off the ground without such funding. In the case of the millennium dome, that would have been a blessing, but there are many other projects for which we have only the lottery to thank.
	A pat on the back should also go to Camelot for running one of the most successful lotteries in the world. It has helped fund 121,000 projects and supported countless small retailers across the country. It is vital to the financial viability of many of our small shops and sub-post offices that they do not have their terminals removed because sales figures are considered too low. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister who is to respond to the debate that the Government will use their best endeavours to persuade those who are responsible for issuing and maintaining terminals to ensure that very small shops are not penalised if they are in areas where sales do not reach a perceived target.
	Over the past seven years, Sport England has received #1.6 billion from the lottery, which has been distributed to sporting good causes. However, Sport England's lottery income has fallen from a peak of around #270 million in 199697 to just #200 million this year, and it is projected to fall even further to #185 million in the financial year ahead. That was before the recent drop in sales, so the figures are now even more dire for sport.
	Every constituency has benefited, as have 62 different sports. So far, 2,800 lottery-funded capital projects have been completed and opened. I am told that the majority, some 85 per cent., are local facilities specifically earmarked for community use.
	I congratulate the Government on their lottery funding aims, and Sport for All on developing sporting opportunities for all sections of our communitythe active communities development fund, sport action zones and school sport co-ordinators. These are all good positive messages. However, Mr. Gordon Neale, the chief executive of Disability Sport Englandwhich is nothing to do with Sport Englandhas contacted me because he wishes the House to be made aware that, when it comes to lottery funding, all is not well in the world of sport. Mr. Neale informed me that
	Xit has become apparent that the distribution of Lottery funding does not support a number of genuine causes in this country. It is also the case that some applications are blocked by third parties used as distributors i.e. Sport England.
	Surely this is public money for good causes, and if the applicant can justify and meet the conditions laid down by the Lottery then they should be allowed to access the funds. I have spoken to a number of like minded organisations who feel that the Lottery should review their application and distribution criteria.
	Organisations who have given many years of beneficial programmes to the people of this country deserve support. I hope the House will agree that the National Lottery should be made more accountable to the public for the distribution of grants to worthy causes.
	Let us not forget the silent beneficiary of the lottery, however. It sits there, raking in millions of pounds each year. So far, it has enjoyed #4.6 billion of lottery money, about a third of the amount raised for good causes. It does not need to account for its spending of that money in particularthe money is merely added to the pot and divvied up later. I am talking, of course, of the Treasury. The lottery has added #4 billion to the pot for our public services. That is something else for which we can be grateful.
	We know that not everything is rosy in the lottery garden, but we must bear in mind the fact that the lottery's contribution to the arts, sports, heritage and charitiescauses that are traditionally low on the list of the Treasury's prioritiesis invaluable. The same cannot be said of other recipients of lottery funds, however; for them, the amounts are more significant, the causes more important and the issue more fundamental. I am talking about the observance of the principle of additionality.
	The Secretary of State has pointed out that the principle that lottery money cannot replace Exchequer spending is clear. Indeed, her predecessor said:
	XThe principle is clear. Lottery money must not replace Exchequer spending.[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 166.]
	There is thus consistency between two Secretaries of State.
	However, the new opportunities fund lottery money is being used to implement Government objectives, as is clear from press releases and consultative documents. Health and education feature high on the Treasury's list of prioritiesrightly so. They also top the list of voters' priorities; they are services that are legitimately and correctly funded from general taxation, and on which the Government have staked their reputation. Yet those services are being part-funded by lottery cash. Why should the Government be permitted to shirk their fiscal responsibilities by funding health and education programmes with lottery money?
	The lottery is funding the Government's commitments to cancer care via a #150 million living with cancer programme. It is also meeting part of the Government's commitment to education via the school sports facilities programme. In the words of the Government, lottery funding should
	Xadd to, and not substitute for, services already provided by government.
	That principle, enshrined in the legislation that created the lottery, is at best being ignored and at worse being abused by such funding. We have a Government who are siphoning off lottery money, which the players think is going to good causes, and using it to pay for their election pledges[Hon. Members: XOh.] The legislation made it clear that lottery money should not be used for that. An election manifesto is one thing; legislation in this place is another.

Colin Challen: Is the hon. Gentleman yet another Opposition Member who does not believe that manifesto pledges should be kept?

Bob Russell: The important thing is that election manifestos should not take the place of legislation. If the hon. Gentleman wants his party to change the legislation, that is for him and his party to do, but while it remains on the statute book the House should honour it. That is clear.

Chris Bryant: Is not the whole point of manifesto pledges to change or to retain legislation?

Bob Russell: I am grateful for that intervention. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the difference between a manifesto commitment and legislation. Manifesto commitments lead to legislation, but as far as I know the House has not yet voted on the change to which I referred. In my opinion, this is the most regressive of the stealth taxes that the Government have so far utilised.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he opposes the new opportunities fund, but I am sure that schools in Colchesterlike those in Leighwill soon be receiving money for new sports facilities under the new opportunities for school sports initiative. Will he give the House an assurance that he will not attend the photo opportunity when those facilities are opened?

Bob Russell: I am not going to give such a commitment, because I would not pass up a chance like that. [Laughter.] I would be much happier, though, if the funding had come from the proper source and if the Government's education policies did something to replace all the demountable classrooms in my constituency. That is not at present on the lottery shopping list, but watch this space.
	Lottery funding is not a long-term answer to the longstanding problems in our public services. If Ministers wish to pay for projects such as cancer care or teaching our librarians and teachers to use computers, they should not fund those projects at the expense of the good causes.

Evan Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hospices providing terminal care for people with cancer rely on lottery funding? Many lottery decisions are predicated on geographical factorswhich areas will receive funding and which will notwhich means that hospices endure a lottery in lottery funding, as well as in NHS funding, even though they provide services that should be core NHS-fundable services.

Bob Russell: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. Life is a lottery, and that is a classic example.

Colin Challen: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that we should not have charitable support for health services, but we have always had campaigns in local newspapers raising money for machinery for hospitals. Why should the lottery be treated any differently?

Malcolm Moss: Because the law says so.

Bob Russell: Exactly. If punters are allowed to choose the destination for the proceeds from their purchase, as suggested in the recent consultation documents on the lottery, that is exactly what could happen. Given the choice, most people would choose to fund cancer care over community centres, but when Parliament created the lottery the intention was to remove such choices. Those schemes should not be mutually exclusive. As the Secretary of State argued in the foreword to a departmental publication, the lottery should enable
	Xmuch needed initiatives, which would not otherwise have been funded, to go ahead.
	Cancer care should be funded out of general taxation, because it is a priority and would go ahead anyway. Conservation areas can be financed from lottery grants because they are not a priority and may not otherwise go ahead.
	The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has pointed out that lottery funding works best when it is free from direct Government control. The community fund has shown its independence from Government and has responded to genuine local needs. Picking out a few individual lottery grants for criticism should not deflect attention from the important work that the community fund has done over its eight years of operation as an independent body.
	The most valuable gift that politicians can give to lottery fund distributors is their independence. The ability to distance themselves from Ministers has enabled distributors to contribute to significant successes, from big schemes such as the Eden project to smaller programmes across the country, helping to regenerate communities, rescue buildings and increase skills. However, we need only recall the millennium dome for evidence of what happens when politicians seek to lead with such projects.
	The best projects are community led, respond to local needs and are driven by local people. Sometimes the aims of those people and the groups to which they belong are contrary to the Government's aims, but that makes them no less legitimate. Indeed, the chances are that it makes them more legitimate. Involving people in decisions in their communities is an invaluable exercise that can engage people in regeneration, community awareness and local politics. If the price of perpetuating that involvement is that the occasional grant is condemned by the Daily Mail, so be it.
	Where the Government need to involve themselves more closely is in ensuring that the poorest and most deprived areas receive their fair share of funding. In 2001, four of the 81 most deprived districts in the United Kingdom received no new opportunities fund money. Thirty-three of those 81 received less than the national average. Of the 80 districts that received more than #10 per head, not even half appeared on the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions list of the most deprived districts. The fair shares programme has gone some way to redressing that but distributors need to be extra vigilant in ensuring that they are not giving grants merely to those who have the means to apply for them.

Chris Bryant: There is an important point about different areas being described, or not described, as deprived. My constituency of Rhondda consists of seven or eight wards that would be listed among the poorest in Wales; indeed, they would be listed among the poorest in Europe. However, because Rhondda Cynon Taff, the local authority in which my constituency falls, also contains some of the wealthier wards in Wales, all of which are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), grants that go to my constituency might not be counted as going to the poorest in the country.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification but I think that he is in a way agreeing that we need to focus attention on the poorest areas to ensure that they get at least their fair share.
	Ministers also need to be vigilant about how quickly awards are paid. Millions of pounds are still held for national lottery distribution but are not yet committed, despite the debate that we had on the subject some six months ago. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) criticised the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the fact that lottery funds were not being distributed on time. He said:
	XThe reserve funds of the distributing bodies have continued to growby almost #150 million since December 2000and now stand at almost #3.5 billion.
	Those funds had been allocated but not yet distributed to projects. My hon. Friend said that
	Xmore than a quarter of the #12 billion that the lottery has raised since its began . . . has not yet been distributed. [Official Report, 1 March 2002; Vol. 380, c. 970.]
	That is the equivalent of almost two years' income. If it were easier for prospective applicants to apply for grants, that would not be the case. A one-stop shop for applicants would remove many of the hurdles for groups that would normally be put off applying for a grant, and enable money to be siphoned down to areas that need it most, which often happen to be those least likely to apply.
	Falling lottery sales are a continuing concern to the good causes. Bodies such as Sport England have little alternative to grant in aid and lottery funding. They would be hamstrung by significant falls in income. Projects such as those that Sport England has funded and that have more than doubled facility usage in many cases would surely have to come to an end without alternative revenue streams.
	Camelot's sales improvement programme is designed to arrest the fall in sales, but we need to explore other areas, too. I would like lottery-supported schemes to display the fact that they have been helped by lottery ticket sales in the hope that that will reconnect lottery ticket buyers with good causes. I have not met that many people who play the lottery whose prime concern is the good causes. I think that they have an ulterior objective. Nevertheless, they need to be told where the money is goingto the good causesand to be reminded that when they purchase a ticket they are not only participating in a prize draw but helping to support good causes in and around their community.
	Whatever steps are taken, we need to ensure that they are taken quickly. Sustained falls in sales will see the lottery diminish, and with it many of the programmes that our communities hold most dear.

Chris Smith: There is common ground among hon. Members: we all recognise the enormous importance of what the lottery has achieved. I vividly recall attending the opening of the Olympic games in Sydney just over two years ago and meeting athletes from the British team. Time after time, they thanked me for the lottery funding that had enabled them to develop their potential to fulfil what they were capable of and to give them a real chance of doing credit not just to themselves, but to this country.
	I am also acutely conscious of the benefits of projects that have been able to go ahead in my constituency. Building work will be completed shortly on the London Symphony Orchestra's music education centre at St. Luke's church, Old street, so transforming one of the greatest of London's old churches into a centre that will provide the opportunity for children and others from many parts of London to have the experience of working with one of the world's greatest orchestras. That project, which is jointly funded by arts lottery and heritage lottery money, is a splendid example of what can be achieved by lottery funding and would not otherwise be possible.
	Virtually all hon. Members agree absolutely that the lottery has a done a huge amount of good, but it is now under attack, so I want to say three things this afternoon. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on standing up firmly for the robust independence of the lottery distributors, especially the community fund. That independence was, of course, put in place by the Tory Government. It was fought for fiercely by one Tory Front Bencher after another, and there have been rather a lot of them over the years.
	Of course, the community fund will occasionally do things that many people do not like. It will give money to organisations that look after the interests of minorities. I have to observe, in case the Conservative party has not yet tumbled to this, that democracy is surely every bit as much about looking after the interests of minorities as about representing the views of the majority.

Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend may recall the wide coverage given to the purchase of Winston Churchill's papers. I do not disagree with that, but one might say that a certain family benefited from it. However, is it not true that some things will please some people and not others and that you cannot please all the people all the time?

Chris Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the community fund will occasionally pay money to organisations that may be critical of the Government indeed, most charities in this country are from time to timeand it will certainly do things that the Daily Mail does not like, and rightly so. That is its job; it is what independence is all about. I have to say with some sadness that I am not surprised that the Tories are giving in to the braying bigotry of parts of our national media. That diminishes them, and it demeans some of our national newspapers. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to continue to resist following them down that road.

Julie Kirkbride: The right hon. Gentleman seems to accuse Conservative Members of being bigoted because we do not approve of the grant given to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. Does he therefore think that the Home Secretary is bigoted in also disapproving of that grant?

Chris Smith: I simply observe that every example quoted by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), first, came from the Daily Mail and, secondly, related to organisations responsible for supporting either asylum seekers or people who happen to be lesbian or gay. If that is not picking on minorities, I am not sure what is.
	The second thing that I would tell my right hon. Friend is that, as she considers the representations now arriving in relation to her consultation on the lottery's future, she should resist any proposal that does away with the existing division of responsibilities for lottery distribution. I would remind her of the firm guarantee, which was put in place three or four years ago, that the existing percentages should be safeguarded for the arts, sport, heritage and charities for the entirety of the duration of the second franchise of the lottery. That commitment was given not just by me but by the Prime Minister and the whole Government.

John Greenway: I am extremely grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, because I totally agree with him. Does he think, however, that he would have had the opportunity to say that on the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State today had we not had a debate on the lottery?

Chris Smith: Having a debate on the lottery is a useful opportunity for me to do so. It obviates the necessity for me to sit down and write a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make precisely the same point. The point, however, must be made, because ensuring that one sixth each of the good causes money goes to the arts, sport, heritage and charitiesand making sure that that lasts into the futureis an important objective to which I trust she will hold fast.
	My third point to my right hon. Friend and the House is that one issue remains that needs to be considered, on which the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has touchedthe extent of the balance of funds that are sitting in the national lottery distribution fund. A stubbornly constant figure of #3.5 billion sits in the fund. We have always saidand it is truethat it is all earmarked for approved projects, which have been applied for, considered and approved for grant by the various distributors. Those projects, however, by their very nature, take years to use up all the allocated money. Meanwhile, as those years progress, more funds flow in every week to the distribution fund. For the arts, sport and heritage in particular, that means that an outstanding amount of money is apparently sitting there waiting to be used.
	I know that the Secretary of State has urged the distributors to bring the balances down. That will not happen, however, without a fundamental change to the way in which approvals can be made by the distribution bodies. I urge her to put in place a system of forward allocationsespecially for the arts, sport and heritageenabling the distributors to approve applications in advance of the funds coming in, but in the safe knowledge that the money will, in due course, come in. That, of course, will need a change to the Treasury rules. She will need to persuade her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is worth doing, but it could provide a real solution to the distribution fund problem and could enable a real boost in immediate approvals in these important areas of activity.
	We must all welcome the overall success of the lottery. We should resist the minority-bashing instincts of the Tory party. We should reassert the independence of the lottery distributors. We should repeat the guarantee of funding for the arts, sport, heritage and charities into the future, which has previously been given. Finally, we should look at new ways of ensuring that the available funds can be put into use more effectively and immediately.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, not least to mark the significance of Members on both sides paying tribute to the previous Conservative Government. That is extremely rare.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Kirkbride: The hon. Gentleman should at least give me a few minutes. Although he is my colleague on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I will not, on this occasion, allow him to disabuse me of my view that the previous Conservative Government should be accorded some merit. I, too, wish to place on record how pleased I am with the lottery and its funding of projects in my constituency.
	I am especially pleased that the Secretary of State drew attention to some of the great capital projects that were funded by the millennium fund that was created under the lottery by the Conservative Government. However, she then appeared to contradict herself in her subsequent remark that the way in which they set up the lottery was not sufficiently democratic. There was a clear need to celebrate the millennium with projects, such as the Eden project in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), and we then had to move on to do other things with lottery funding.
	I also congratulate the Secretary of State on her desire to consider how the lottery may change in the future and to assess whether we should allow people to earmark the good causes that they wish to fund when they purchase a ticket. I have some doubts as to whether that would work, because it would entail a great bureaucracy, but the suggestion has some merit and should be considered. It may encourage people to believe that their money is being spent wisely.
	The lottery has been a fantastic success in my constituency. We have recently been given #250,000 to create a ward for the Primrose hospice at my local hospital. The money came out of the new opportunities fund and, in this context, I disagree with my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. So great is the public acclamation for such projects that the Government are right to consider the principle of additionality, which did not form part of the lottery when it was set up by the Conservative Government in the early 1990s.
	I wish to refer to another project on my patch. I recently visited the Charford resource centre, which is in one of the few deprived areas in my constituency. Its chairman, Kevin McNamara, a former Labour councillor, has done fantastic work for the centre, which is supported by volunteers but has received #400,000 from the community fund. It has done fantastic work in providing IT skills to young mothers and to young people who are unable to go to college.
	The community fund has done great work, and it is doing good work in my constituency, and that is why I am very cross with the award that it made recently to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), whose speech I have the honour of following, chose to say that, because Conservative Members disagree with that award, we are bigoted. I draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State also appears to oppose the award. It is certainly true that the Home Secretary disapproves of it. The whole awards procedure is brought into disrepute if the public feel that significant sums of money#363,000 is a huge amountthat can do a tremendous amount of good work in all our constituencies go to such organisations. I know of other projects that I would like to receive funding, and I bet every Member can think of how to obtain good value from #363,000. Most of us do not believe it is good value to grant that sum to this organisation. British taxpayers already provide significant support to people coming to this country to claim asylum. We are a generous country, and it could be argued that our generosity to those who fear persecution is one reason why people come here.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the grant was allocated by a quango system established by the Conservative party when it was in government, and according to the rules, regulations and criteria of the legislation introduced by the Conservative Government of the day?

Julie Kirkbride: I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman. First, the guidelines were changed. Secondly, the community fund in general has a responsibility to pay due and strict attention to the organisations that it funds. We are democratically elected and are responsive to the electorate, who can sack us in a general election. We are obliged to answer our constituents' mail. Our remarks in the Chamber and the way in which we vote on legislation are recorded in Hansard. So we have a democratic responsibility on which we can be challenged.
	One weakness of the community fund and other grant-giving bodies is the lack of democratic responsiveness. They need to be much more attentive to public reaction when they decide to give awards to organisations that will engender a hostile response. It saddens me that they put themselves in that position because it harms the wider good works that they do.
	I engaged in a radio debate with one of the community fund distributors. It saddened me to hear the distributor say that such grants account for only a tiny proportion of the money distributed. That is not the point. Hundreds of thousands of pounds would do great good in all our constituencies, and that opportunity has been lost with the award of such a grant.

Candy Atherton: I am listening to the hon. Lady's arguments. Does she agree with the campaign by the Daily Mail to target the chair of the community fund?

Julie Kirkbride: No, certainly not. In fairness, the Daily Mail has condemned the opprobrium attached to Lady Brittan and does not believe that it is right and proper. [Interruption.] I am not an apologist for the Daily Mail; I am here to express my views. I am happy to make it clear that I would not support such attacks in any shape or form.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the Government's changes to the guidelines. Indeed, I referred to them when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Apart from creating a more level playing field for the communities that benefit from a lottery grant, there is no need to issue guidelines on who should receive such funds. That decision should be for the discretion of the people who award them. We should not say that they are just for young people.

Claire Ward: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Kirkbride: No. I am afraid that I do not have much time.

Chris Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Kirkbride: Yes, as the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the guidelines.

Chris Smith: No one has said that lottery distributors should just look after the interests of children and young people. There is a spread of need in our society to which the lottery distributors need to pay attention.

Julie Kirkbride: The right hon. Gentleman admitted in an intervention that his guidelines stated that priority should be given to young people.

Chris Smith: The hon. Lady was not listening. I saidthe wording was precisethat attention should be paid to the needs of children and young people. That is very different from giving exclusive priority to them.

Julie Kirkbride: We will have to agree to differ on the semantics. It seems to Conservative Members that the right hon. Gentleman created a priority for young people which is inappropriate, given the needs of the entire community.
	The creation of priorities in the new guidelines detracts from the fact that some organisations may have been refused a grant because of too much political correctness. For example, the British Legion was refused #500,000 for a residential home, an application for #400,000 for ex-servicemen suffering from psychiatric illnesses was refused, the British Vascular Foundation was refused #30,000 to help to promote knowledge about diseases and strokes and the British Liver Trust was refused #224,000 to help with screening for a dangerous genetic disorder that affects 200,000 people.
	These are all worthwhile causes, and it is disappointing to Conservative Members that such categories of organisations have been refused grants. I do not want to excite the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury by saying which categories of successful applicants I disapprove of, but they should not have been given money when the needy organisations that I have just mentioned were turned down. 5.35 pm

Claire Ward: Since the lottery was established in 1994, it has provided huge benefits to millions of people in every constituency. There is not a single Member who cannot point to a project in their constituency that has received a substantial benefit from the national lottery. Whether through support for the arts, heritage, sports, charities or other good causes, the #12 billion raised in that time has helped thousands of projects, large and small.
	We rightly took the opportunity to review the operation of the lottery, just as we reviewed every area of legislation, and in the National Lottery Act 1998 we made the changes necessary to ensure a broader distribution of funds. The creation of the new opportunities fund was a manifesto commitment. As I reminded the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) earlier, this party sticks to its manifesto commitmentssomething that the previous Government did not do. Since the fund has been in operation, it has funded out-of-school-hours clubs in more than 12,000 schools, provided local hospitals with more than 2,000 pieces of new equipment to treat cancer and coronary heart disease, and allocated #750 million to local PE and sports projects. Those are just some of the things that the fund has done to ensure that the national lottery benefits more and more people in the way the public wants. As I said earlier, when we talk to members of the public we find that many people do not want the national lottery proceeds to be invested only in sports, the arts, heritage, charities and voluntary organisations; they want to see the benefits in education and health.

Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lottery funding priorities of health, education and sport mirror the areas that have benefited from record public expenditure, and that lottery funding is therefore added value to those massive public spending increases?

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She reinforces the message that the national lottery provides additionality, just as the Government insisted it should.
	In this debate we have heard a lot from the Opposition about a particular organisation that has received funding. It has been made clear that although many of us have widely differing views about some of the organisations that receive funding from the distributing bodies, we accept that it is important to have an arm's-length principle and to allow those bodies to make the decisions. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport were right to question the decision to award a grant to the NCADC and to remind the community fund to look carefully at how it was made. We ought to be concerned that organisations that receive lottery funding do not act in a manner that is highly political or at odds with the guidelines set by the Government and by parliamentary decisions. I disagree, however, with the unacceptable attacks by newspapers, in particular the Daily Mail, and the excessive campaign that brought out the worst elements of racism. Of course there should be an opportunity to question the allocation of grants, but in this case the manner in which that was done was not appropriate.
	People play the lottery because they want to win. If their primary purpose were to give money to a good cause or charity, they would do that without buying a lottery ticket. However, when they do not win, they feel better because a proportion of their #1 has gone to a good cause. When they read a negative story, some players decide not to continue to play the national lottery; so negative stories have an impact on funding.
	It will be no surprise to many hon. Members to learn that the headquarters of the national operator, Camelot, is in my constituency. It employs more than 400 people. In the past few weeks, it has noticed a direct correlation between the newspaper stories and funds. The damaging attack on the national lottery has resulted in a fall in the sum that will be made available to good causes. We should examine that in the review.
	I hope that the Government will consider how we can ensure a better connection between the organisations and good causes that are funded and what the public want. However, we must achieve a balance: we must ensure that the lottery exists not only for the big causes and great national charities about which we all know, or the popular arts, sports and heritage projects, but also for smaller groups of which many of us have never heard. It is also there for minority groups and interests.
	The Government's review of the national lottery presents an opportunity to try to achieve that balance. The beauty of the lottery is that thousands of small groupsvoluntary organisations that carry out important work in communities throughout the countryhave benefited from small and sometimes significant grants. I hope that they will continue to do that as the lottery goes from strength to strength.

Peter Duncan: I want to bring to hon. Members' attention some aspects of the lottery that have been well publicised, especially north of the border, and that form an important part of the debate.
	I am only too keen to advocate any Conservative policy that brings great benefit to Scotland. The lottery, a successful policy of John Major's Administration, resulted in 14,700 awards in Scotland and a total that now exceeds #1 billion for valued good causes north of the border. That is directly related to the #12 billion that has been raised throughout the United Kingdom. I received that information through a news release on one of my regular visits to the Scotland Office website, which apparently costs the taxpayer in Scotland a considerable amount. On the website, the Secretary of State for Scotland urges Scots to make a good response to the Government's consultation.
	One inequity that I wish to raise results from the fair share programme. It is a laudable programme that has highlighted some imbalances in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. It identifies Glasgow city, Dundee city, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Lanarkshire and South Ayrshire as places that have received less than their fair share of lottery distributions. I shall discuss some of the reasons for their under-representation later, but first, I want to consider a fair share matter that affects my constituency: rurality.
	There is an inherent bias in lottery funding away from rural areas. I was delighted to receive notification recently of a grant to refurbish Rhonehouse village hall near Castle Douglas in my constituency. That valued project would not have been realised without the national lottery. However, projects are analysed by constituency and, as was said earlier, that can hide inequities in the constituencies that merit investigation.
	An anomaly to which I draw the House's attention involves an aspect of the new opportunities fund that has received considerable press coverage north of the border: the Scottish land fund. I am aware, as are many hon. Members, of a case that has been publicised in the papers, in which an award of more than #3 million was made to the residents of Gigha, to purchase their island. I have before me an advertisement dated 10 August 2001, which makes interesting reading. It advertises facilities on the island, including an airstrip and the XAward-winning Gigha Hotel with
	X13 letting bedrooms, Bar, Restaurant and 6 holiday cottages.
	The matter drew considerable press comment at the time, and I thought it worthy of some investigation today.
	I looked at the Scottish land fund websitewhich is administered through Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprisewhich sets out the objectives of the fund as:
	XTo improve opportunities and reduce disadvantage both for communities and individuals in rural areas;
	I wholeheartedly agree with that
	XTo encourage community involvement . . .
	To enhance . . .environmental diversity . . .
	To facilitate positive use of the land reform legislation . . .
	To diversify the pattern of land ownership.
	Nowhere in the objectives is the word Xsustainable to be found. It is causing concern in Scotland that such a substantial award was made to a small community of only 110 people. People are worried that the community may have got into an unsustainable situation, and we wonder whether it is part of the lottery's core objectives to create such situations.
	Following the creation of the new opportunities fundthe Xsixth good causein 1998, I found myself with a dilemma. I have a personal interest to declare, in that my wife is the fundraising manager for Macmillan Cancer Relief in Dumfries and Galloway, and she and I are delighted that a new oncology unit is being built at the Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary with the assistance of more than #1 million from the new opportunities fund. I am keen to make use of whatever guidance is in place relating to the new opportunities fund, and that project would not have happened at this point without NOF funding. Is it, however, the objective of the national lottery that key health projects should happen simply because people buy lottery tickets? Although people in Dumfries and Galloway have no access to chemotherapy, for example, and the unit will resolve the problem of people who are diagnosed with cancer having to undertake a two or three-hour drive to Edinburgh every day to undergo treatment, is it right that the Government should choose to solve that problem through the sale of lottery tickets?
	I have a particular problem with that, because many analyses show that tickets are generally purchased by those with less-than-average earnings. Indeed, the Secretary of State pointed out earlier that it was often the most marginal income that was used for that purpose. Is it appropriate for marginal income from those who can least afford it to be the source of spending in key areas of health and education? I would advocate that it is not. It is the absolute opposite of the progressive taxation that would be seen as the most reasonable way to do this in a fair society.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question about one of the most difficult areas involved in this issue. However, is he saying that he would rather that the #1 million NOF money be held back until such time as the Scottish Executive decide that it is time to build a proper oncology unit in his area? The hon. Gentleman may be a new Member of the House, but he will know very well that politics is about choosing priorities. There is never an easy way of doing that, and never an easy moment at which to do it. I am sure that he would rather have the #1 million to build that oncology unit now than not have it.

Peter Duncan: Absolutely. As I have said, these are the present guidelines. I am only too well aware that the problems in my area relating to cancer treatment deserve attention, but they deserve attention from the Government and the taxpayer, not from people whoas the Secretary of State herself saidare on marginal incomes. They do not deserve attention from those who can least afford it. Having said that, I must say I am delighted that the oncology unit has been opened in Dumfries and Galloway, because it is greatly needed.
	Time rattles on, but I want to end by raising a couple of hot issues of my own. One is the need to make the process of applying for grants more straightforward. I recently addressed a conference organised by Stewartry Community Initiatives in Dalbeattie, in my constituency. Very small groups have told me time and again that applying for lottery funds was too complex and discriminated against voluntary organisations. The projects that are supported often involve existing full-time development workers. Such organisations do not need to engage in that complex process.
	Finally, let me encourage the Minister to be ever more adventurous in regard to the community outlets programme, which is an incredibly important part of the lottery's expansion into the most rural areas in the United Kingdom. Those communities have not the turnover to justify outlets of their own. I have tried to convey the message that the lottery succeeds because of public confidence. When people in rural areas know that they can buy tickets locally, they will see the benefits of the projects that can be supported.

Andy Burnham: When the history books chronicling the events of the Major years are writtenindeed, I believe that some have already been writtenthey will show that the first part of the Opposition motion is accurate. The national lottery was indeed a Conservative creation, and it has indeed raised welcome funds for communities throughout the country. There is no doubt that it provided temporary relief from VAT on fuel, negative equity, black Monday, record NHS waiting lists and the Xback to basics campaign. For that reason, the lottery will go down in history as one of the two memorable achievements of the Major Administration: it will be right up there with the cones hotline.
	So much is beyond dispute. From that point onwards, however, the motion descends rapidly into confusion. The substance involves two charges. The first is that the establishment of the new good cause for health, education and the environment was wrong; the second is that recent awards made by the community fund have undermined public confidence in the lottery.
	In regard to the second charge, I remind Opposition Members that it was the Conservative Government who insisted on a strict arm's-length arrangement for lottery distributors. It was on precisely that basis that they defended grants for the Churchill papersmentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)and the Royal Opera House. The necessary consequence of an arm's-length arrangement is that sometimes funding decisions will be made with which the Government of the day do not agree.
	Opposition Members need to be clear about whether they are abandoning their previously steadfast commitment to the arm's-length principle. That is what they are saying today. The truth is that they have not thought it through. Their main reason for calling the debate was not genuine concern for the lottery or the projects that it funds; it had more to do with a cynical attempt to gain quick, cheap headlines on the back of an unpleasant press campaign.
	The motion talks of public trust being Xdestroyed. Is that not precisely what the motion and the debate seek to do? We have the party of the vulnerable undermining the lottery, reducing funds to good causes and thereby denying people who could otherwise benefit. That sounds more like the Xnasty party to me.
	The first charge betrays a far more serious misunderstanding of the lottery and of what the public think about it. Lottery players strongly support the principle of lottery funds being used to support health, education and environmental projects. The truth is that Labour's introduction of such action helped to revive confidence in lottery good causes at a time when they had received sustained negative publicity. I hope that in retrospect the Opposition will accept that giving a full fifth of lottery proceeds to the millennium celebrations was a mistake. That was too much, and from the outsetwhen the lottery was first launchedpeople called for funding for health and education.
	They were right to do so. In the next few weeks, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) knows, secondary schools in my constituency will receive funds via the new opportunities fund for brand-new sports facilities and floodlit Astroturf pitches that will be open to the whole community out of school hours. Such facilities are sorely lacking in the Leigh area. Surely giving young people the chance to engage in sport with decent facilities, and in the process helping to tackle crime and improve health, is one of the best uses for lottery money.

John Greenway: Those projects were funded previously by Sport England. Why did we need the NOF to fund them?

Andy Burnham: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Those sports facilities in state secondary schools have never been funded by Sport England; they have been funded directly by central Government.

John Greenway: I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit my constituency, where he will see such a facility at Huntington comprehensive school.

Andy Burnham: On the whole, Sport England does not fund state secondary school sports facilities. Lottery money is now funding themand not just Leigh is benefiting: every constituency will receive some money.
	I would like to know how many Opposition Members, like the hon. Member for Colchester, will be writing to their local papers to say that they oppose that funding for secondary schools. They certainly would not have the nerve to attend photocalls. Millbank may have gone, but we will be watching.
	The motion suggests that the Opposition would scrap schemes such as thisand money for cancer equipment and treatment for coronary heart disease. That would be a sure-fire way of damaging public confidence in the lottery. It is not just the projects funded by the NOF that command support; the distribution mechanism has much to commend it. National programmes mean that no areas miss out on the free-for-all application process, and an impact is created that makes people link a national initiative to a local scheme. That too is likely to increase public confidence, and I would like more funds to be distributed in the same way.

Bob Spink: The distribution formula is not working very well. People in Essex are receiving very little per head compared with those in other areas. Does the hon. Gentleman want the Minister to try to resolve the problem?

Andy Burnham: That is a fair point. My constituency has not received enough from the lottery, and I think we should look at the reasons for that. Let me return the question to the hon. Gentleman, however. Does not the fact that areas such as mine and hisand that of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valleyhave not received their fair share of the lottery have something to do with the way in which his party set up the national lottery? An application-driven process and strict match-funding requirements were always bound to cause regional disparities in funding for good causes. That applies particularly to disadvantaged areas, where community groups do not have the resources possessed by those in more affluent parts.
	There should be no surprise about the regional disparities. Leigh has had #3 million from the lottery, which is not a good return from the #13 billion raised so far and much less than the price of the tickets bought in my area. For Leigh, I could substitute many other deprived former coalfield and other communities. I am not against the idea of affluent areas doing well out of the lottery, but areas such as mine have found it difficult to obtain any funds at all. It sometimes seems that the Xgood causes grants are as random as the prizes given to players.
	One of the problems is that the lottery is intensely bureaucratic. XAwards for all has been a good innovation, but it is not easy to obtain a significant lottery grantone of #50,000 or more. That, however, is what groups in my constituency need: they need bigger lottery grants that can make an impact on the ground.
	I have tried to encourage groups in my constituency to apply, but the reaction tends to be the same. People roll their eyes and talk of the work involved. It is not worth taking the risk, because they have a huge expectation of failure. Sadly, that is the case for many people living in former coalfield areas; they will not take the risk, as they know they will have to put in many hours of work.
	All that has distanced the lottery from some communities, as there is no ready connection between the work of the lottery and the projects that it funds. Part of the problem is that the public do not connect with the names of the lottery distributors. I know that distributors jealously guard their identities, but public awareness of them is very low indeed. The truth is that, apart from the in-crowd and the statutory sector, painfully few people are aware of the community fund, the heritage lottery fund and the new opportunities fund.
	We all complain from time to time that our areas do not get enough out of the lottery. In my case, that is absolutely true: my constituency does not get enough. Under the rules set for them by the previous Conservative Government and later by our Government, the distributors have done a good job, making difficult decisions and getting funding to all parts of the country, but the time has now come to put institutional interests aside and take hard decisions for the future good of the lottery. It should be a simple business. Playing the lottery is a simple business, but there has never been a simple way of getting funds to good causes. The lottery needs to achieve that if it is to survive in the long term.
	When I look around my constituency I see countless schemes that could benefit from funding, but I also feel frustrated when I think of the difficulty of cutting through the bureaucratic morass and getting to the point at which they would receive some funding. For too long there has been an assumption that people seeking lottery funding are trying to gain money for improper or unworthy schemes. They are treated as guilty until proved innocent. I would like the system to be turned around. Like the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), I have slowly reached the conclusion that it would be better to have a single good causes organisation to distribute funds and a single lottery gateway with regional offices. However, I believe that we should maintain the shares for each of the current good causes; they would simply be administered by one overarching organisation. In my experience, projects rarely fall neatly into one box and we need rapidly to move to a more integrated system.
	I would support the introduction of a two-page application form for all projects. It could be followed up by visits from development workers. That would be the best way of deciding whether a project should proceed. Finally, when projects are funded through one good causes organisation, we should always make sure that the lottery logothe crossed fingersis placed prominently on the project, as people recognise it as the sign of the lottery and it is owned by the public sector.
	Of course the great risk in simplifying the system is that some projects may get through the net and some money may be spent unwisely, but that is the price for making it simpler and more accessible. I think that it is a price that the British public are now ready to pay.

Andrew Selous: On 2 July, like many hon. Members, I received a briefing note from the Library that listed lottery grants by constituency. I found that my constituency came 625th out of 659. It has received only #2.4 million since the lottery started, while the constituency average is #15.7 million. The disparity between our constituencies is absolutely enormous. I quite understand, and would defend the fact, that constituencies with national facilities should expect a larger share of lottery funding, as they are providing facilities for the whole country, but the figures clearly show that constituencies in the greatest need have not been treated fairly. The top three constituencies are Greenwich and Woolwich, which received #670 million, Cities of London and Westminster, which received #484 million and Manchester, Central, which received #296 million. Around the country, Birmingham, Ladywood received #183 million, Bristol, West received #142 million, Brent, South received #128 million, Norwich, South received #85 million, Cambridge received #70 million, Truro and St. Austell received #62 million and Nottingham, South received #60 million.
	At the other end of the scale, Birmingham, Hall Green, which is clearly a constituency in great need, received only #912,000. Hayes and Harlington received only #671,000, Rayleigh in Essex received just over #1 million and Billericay received #863,000. Those variations in funding per constituency are simply not acceptable. People up and down the country play the lottery.

Chris Bryant: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who said earlier that there should be less insistence on the geographical element?

Andrew Selous: I would advocate taking the average#15 million per constituency, setting aside the national considerations, which we all understandand introducing a 33 per cent. upper limit and a 33 per cent. lower limit around that average. There could always be exceptions. If one took the average as #15 million and allowed a variation of between #10 million and #20 million, distribution would be much fairer and we could justify it to our constituents.

Kevin Brennan: Is not that a rather silly point, particularly when it is applied to large cities? For example, the Millennium stadium in Cardiff is not in my constituency, but it could not have been built half in my constituency and half in the one next door.

Andrew Selous: Obviously there will be boundary differences and variations for national projects such as the Millennium stadium. I have already conceded that point and said that there should be exceptions for national facilities. However, I hope the Government intend to address the existing variations in the review that they announced at the end of July and I would commend to them the sort of proposal that I have made.

Kim Howells: I shall be very brief, as I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to get on. I can inform all hon. Members that, so far, the consultation has generated just four responses from hon. Members. If it were such a vital and burning issue, surely we would have received a lot more representations.

Andrew Selous: I hope that the Minister will take this speech as part of my own representation, but I will undertake to write to him specifically about this point so that he will have a fifth representation before long. I intend to contact the chief executive of South Bedfordshire district council and all the local voluntary groups and community organisations in my constituency that have made unsuccessful bids for lottery funding to see whether we can achieve more.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. Can he advise me about areas of my constituency that cannot apply for lottery funding? The stuffing was knocked out of them by 20-odd years of Conservative government and they do not have community leadership or community groups.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly cheap point. I drew attention to many constituencies in areas of great need that have been very poorly served. I have said that that is wrong and that I would like something to be done about it. I hope that he concedes that.
	I should like to move on to look at the way in which the new opportunities fund intends to fund different constituency projects. I corresponded with the new opportunities fund in the east of England. I understand that funding is allocated according to the index of multiple deprivation for 2000. That sounds fair enough, but it has a grave drawback that applies across a range of Government projects. Constituencies such as mine, which overall are reasonably well-to-do but have significant areas that are less well off, lose out substantially. I understand from the reply that I received from the new opportunities fund in the east of England that this is of great concern throughout the area. The letter informs me that an OSEPa multi-agency observatories social exclusion projectin the east of England area will be trying to drill down below ward level to apply lottery money to specific projects in the greatest need. In his reply to the debate, will the Minister clarify whether every region in the UK will be replicating this work, and, if so, is it really necessary or the best use of public funds? That would seem to be a slight waste of funds.
	In my constituency, I have taken a great interest in homelessness and made my maiden speech in a debate on the subject. A local housing charity, First Place housing, was initially funded by the lottery for one or two years, after which the funding was stopped. That caused great difficulty; the centre it ran in Leighton Buzzard had to close and the centre that it still manages to run in Dunstable cannot do as much work as it would like. I feel extremely concerned about this matter.
	We have heard about village, community and church halls, but this is not just a rural issue. There is a serious problem with regard to disability discrimination legislation. I will defend passionately the right of disabled people to have full access to all premises. My mother was in a wheelchair for much of her life and I have seen the difficulties that people with disabilities face when they want to be integrated fully.
	Village, community and church halls are worried about legislation that is to come into force next year requiring them to provide full accessibility to disabled people. I do not want those facilities to close because they cannot, with the best will in the world, raise the funds to make the vital improvements. This is an extremely serious issue, and we do not have long to deal with it.
	I understand that the charity, Action with Communities in Rural England, has said that a #50 million fund is urgently needed up and down the country to help halls to cope with the legislation. I commend that to the Minister so that progress can be made. I visited the Billington village hall committee in my constituency recently, so I know how desperately worried the local volunteers who run such centres are about this matter.
	I have mentioned homeless charities that have had their money stopped and the desperate need among village and community halls. It is galling for causes that command widespread support, whose funds have been stopped or who cannot obtain them, to see causes with less widespread support being given money. I urge the Minister to consider the guidelines. I take the point about the arm's-length principle and about politicians not interfering, but one of the criteria in the guidelines should be that causes should command widespread support, so that we can increase the amount of giving from the public and ensure that funding stays at a high level to benefit good causes.
	I urge those involved in the lottery to realise that they have a responsibility to help those who are addicted to the lottery and to scratch cards. There is a moral responsibility on the lottery in that regard. Projects funded by the lottery should be well advertised; the connection between funds going to the lottery and projects should be made clear. People will be encouraged to contribute to the lottery if they see the connection between the pound or two that they pay and the funding of a worthwhile project in their area.
	Finally, I echo the point about application forms that has been made by several Members. It is not fair that the smaller community organisations, such as those to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) referred, cannot cope with the complexity of the very long forms. It is unfair that only charities with development officers are able to benefit.

Colin Challen: I rise to speak as a founding member of a rather unfortunate cross-party group of Members of Parliament who represent the constituencies that have not received a great deal of lottery money. One of the regular attenders is the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who has paid great attention to the subject. It is a group that we would all like to escape from.
	Some twelve or so constituencies languish at the bottom of the league table, with less than 10 per cent. of the average given to constituencies nationally. These are sizeable communities, and we believe that more needs to be done to address the issues that are preventing local groups, charities, sports clubs and the like from applying for grants.
	Only this morning, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and myselfa cross-party delegationwent to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for talks with the heads of the various distributing bodies. It was a constructive and positive discussion, and we are trying to ensure that more effort is made to provide our voluntary organisations with the capacity to submit more applications. Our group has also had two positive and helpful meetings with the Secretary of State. There is some momentum behind those unfortunate Members who wish to get out of our group.
	The Opposition may want to consider why we have had to have those meetings. They talk about mismanagement, but it would be fair and objective to ask why some areas have done so much better than others. The explanation lies to a large extent in the fact that the early years of the lottery could be characterised as a free-for-all, when all-comers could bang in their applications and money flowed out of the distributors' hands without any clear strategy or sense as to how everybody, regardless of where they lived, could benefit.
	We now have a situation where it will be impossible for some geographical areas to catch up, but at least the Government have recognised this and introduced the fair shares scheme, which seeks to ensure that more lottery money goes to areas that have had a low share in the past and which are also deprived. I have some queries about exactly how the fair shares scheme is designed, and I have some ideas about how it ought to be improved. My thoughts will be submitted to the consultation on the distribution of lottery funds, and I hope that, apart from the unfortunate group of Members to which I have referred, others will append their names to my proposal. The deadline is 30 October, a week away, so there is time to do it.
	We cannot go on with a situation where some constituencies have received barely #1 million pounds for local good causes, when the average is nearly #16 million. I know that there are many complexities in how one might assess the true value of the lottery to the people who live in local areas; after all, many people will use facilities in city centres, such as football stadiums, which are paid for with lottery funds from the general public but are not based in their locality.
	In my view, there is a clear injustice where local people have bought a disproportionate number of lottery tickets but have not seen much happening locally as a result. I expect that, by now, my constituency has bought nearly #50 million worth of lottery tickets. The average return to constituencies is nearly #16 million; in my case, the figure is just #2 million. If there is a need for any soul-searching over the lottery, it is about whether some people are buying more than their fair share of lottery tickets and are subsidising the activities of those who could well afford not to be subsidised. I should like to see research done on that. If people are to be encouraged to buy tickets, they should know that the money is fairly distributed.
	As I have said, these are very complex questions, and no one knows this better than those who organise the distribution of the funds. I invited Lady Brittan to my constituency to press the case in person. She came up without delay and spent a considerable amount of time talking about the issues with an excellent local organisation, Morley Elderly Action. She was courteous and knowledgeable, and I am sorry that the Opposition have chosen implicitly to ally themselves with a newspaper attack on her and her staff; an attack that, in their usual mealy-mouthed way, the Opposition dissociate themselves from but are secretly content to see take place.
	That sort of behaviour taints everything that the lottery does and it is not a rational way to analyse how the lottery is performing. It is not designed to bring about thought-through solutions. The net result of the Opposition's behaviour will be to harm the very thing that they say they want to defend. It is the politics of ethical delinquency. If the delinquents succeed, many organisations, particularly those in areas that have not, as yet, seen great benefits from the lottery, will never see any benefit.

Andrew Selous: I feel compelled to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. The reason why some Conservative Members have raised this matter is because we do care about the lottery. We raised it for no reason other than that we want the lottery to prosper and levels of giving to increase. I alluded to the distribution of certain lottery money only briefly in my speech, so please do not demean our motives in raising the matter.

Colin Challen: I certainly do not want to demean the motives of the seven Opposition Members present; they are the ones who have not choked on their cornflakes, having read the Daily Mail, and at least they have attended today's debate.

Mark Francois: I want to take this opportunity to commend the hon. Gentleman for all the work that he has done on behalf of those of us whoat the moment, at leastare at the very bottom of the pile in terms of payouts to our constituencies. Does he agree that there is a real problem in those constituencies? Is there not a danger that, because so many bids have been refused, people will begin to give up if they do not see some genuine return for their efforts?

Colin Challen: That is exactly the point that I am making, and I am glad that there is cross-party consensus on it. For that reason, we should get down to the real issues, and avoid the headline-grabbing stuff and the kind of discussion that puts people off buying tickets. There may be many good reasons why they should not buy tickets, but the subject of this debate is not one of them.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) has shown precisely why it was so sensible of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to table a motion on the national lottery: so he could have his say, put his constituency interests before the House, and make a wider point on behalf of other constituencies that themselves have not done so well out of the lottery. I am therefore sorry that he has chosen to attack the Opposition, instead of thanking us for presenting him with the opportunity to make his case.
	I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) when he says that there is a lot of common ground between us on the subject of the national lottery. Tribute has been paid to John Major for his Government's initiative in setting up the national lottery. I think that it was a good idea, and I myself am an investor. Indeed, if my wife is watching now, could she please make sure that she has purchased our ticket for tonight? [Interruption.] I have a very loyal wife, and I am sure that she is watching now. A ticket costs no more than #2.
	As I said, there is a lot of common ground between us, and there is no doubt that the lottery has done great work, but the dome was an unmitigated disaster. The taking of #800 million of lottery players' money for that white elephantnow destroyedwas a tragedy. However, today is about having a perfectly legitimate debate on the priorities of the national lottery. Hon. Members have, in different ways, expressed their views about their sense of priorities. I remind the House that this issue came to light because Simon Weston, at the invitation of the Conservative party, came to our conferencenot as a Conservative, but as a veteranto explain how veterans feel about the way that they are dealt with not only by this Government, but by previous Governments. It was as a result of the impassioned plea of Simon Westonformerly of the Welsh Guards, and one of the heroes of the Falklands campaignthat his comments came to public knowledge.
	I commend the Daily Mail for running a campaign that highlighted, in essence, what I want to talk about tonight: the allocation of funds for one sector of our communityour ex-service men and the organisations that sustain themthat the entire House surely feels deserves a higher priority than it is currently accorded. There could not be a more appropriate day to discuss this, for it is today that we have marked in Westminster Abbey the 60th anniversary of the battle of El Alamein. Those of us who saw Jon Snow's television programmemade with the help of his son, Peterat the weekend, had brought home to us the enormity of the horrendous nature of that campaign.
	El Alamein was like many other campaigns of the second world war, but they are not the only ones. In the Falkland islandspart of the United Kingdom's territories255 British service men lost their lives fighting for the freedom of the islanders. According to the Secretary of State, only #1 million out of #12 billion goes to service charities. That is unfortunate, but in fact she has slightly understated the situation. I can tell the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, for whom I have much timenot that I wish to harm his prospects within his own partythat, according to the Library, there are 163 projects that are associated with ex-service charities, and so on. Funding totals #1.6 million, which equals about #10,000 per project. These are great projects, and I am not denying that work has been done for service charities. Many hon. Members will know from their constituency work that there is some activity in respect of the British Legion, the Normandy veterans andas I discovered in my maternal home of the borders of Scotlanda number of pipe bands. Those are great causes, but there are very few large projects.
	For example, as I mentioned in an intervention, it is unfortunate that a few years ago St. Dunstan's was unsuccessful in applying for a grant of #600,000not a huge sum, in lottery termsfor a rehabilitation centre. As hon. Members will know, a young cadet went to the Territorial Army centre in Hammersmith, west London, a couple of years ago and picked up what he thought was a torch on the ground. It was an IRA bomb, and as a result he lost his sight. It is St. Dunstan's that picked him up, and that is what our service charities are doing every day of the week. They do not make a big fuss about it; they do it quietly, and they are a huge rock for those who have served their country, witnessed horrendous scenes, and sacrificed sight, limb or hearing for their country. I do not believe that, as currently constituted, the national lottery is giving those men and womenwho deserve our support on their behalfthe proper priority that they deserve. That is what this debate is about.
	The Royal Naval Benevolent Trust was told by a lottery official that it would not be worth its bothering to apply for a grant, since it has too much money in reserve already. The money that it has in reserve is used to generate income to pay current expenses. It was looking for some support for a capital project, but that was not forthcoming. The Government are not unwilling to give directionsor guidelines, as they are perhaps calledto those who distribute the funds. I want those guidelines firmly to encompass the service charities, which are not supported by the Ministry of Defence or by the Government. In fact, they are supported largely by the ex-service community itself and, of course, by the wider public at the time of the poppy appeal. I believe that some #19 million was given last yeara sum that reflects the priority that the public give to our ex-service men.
	I hope that the Government will think very carefully about this issue. I hope that they will recognise that there is something wrong here, that they have the opportunity to put it right, and that they will do so as soon as possible. Simon Weston said that 20 per cent. of London's rough sleepers are ex-service men. We owe it to them to do more than we are doing; #1.6 million out of #12 billion simply does not reflect the duty that we owe. We have a chance to do something for them, and I hope that the Government will take it today without compromising the independence of the awarding authorities, but by pointing out to them the role that these people play in our society.
	I am glad that the Government have agreed to ask Simon Weston to give evidence. He made an impassioned plea, which struck a chord. It was the Daily Mail that picked it up, and I hope that this House will listen to what has been said, and act on it.

Chris Bryant: I am especially pleased to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who spoke with great sincerity on behalf of his constituents and of the many people in the country who would agree wholeheartedly with much of what he said. However, I am being similarly sincere when I remind the hon. Gentleman of the motion under debate. Many of us would have preferred to debate a motion on the principles that he has elucidated, but they are not what is under discussion.
	It is not a question of the national lottery supporting only veterans, or only the organisations referred to this evening. It should support both. In my constituency, one is less likely to meet veterans at the various veterans' organisations than at the local community association or Labour club. Throughout the Rhondda, there are people in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s who fought for this country in the past.
	Also, the best way to help veterans sleeping rough in London is not by helping veterans' organisations specifically but by helping rough sleepers organisations. That is what many funding bodies are trying to do.
	My plea as MP for the Rhondda is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Aldershot on behalf of his own constituents. We also owe a duty to this country's miners, many of whom died trying to create and build this country's prosperity. Over the years, mining constituencies across the country have not received a fair share of the lottery allocations cake. That is a matter of regret. I am glad that, since 1997, the Government have sought to address that problem, but there is still a long way to go. The average mining constituency in Wales receives only 40 per cent. of the average UK lottery allocation. That problem affects many Labour Members and, despite the kind remarks made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, many of us still want to press the Government on it.
	I confess that some contributions from Conservative Members to the debate have been depressing. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) gave us the old, old story. I longed for the bright shoes of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and for a debate that revealed some of the colour of the supposedly nice party that the Conservative party has become. Yet we got a list of organisationsrepresenting women, gays and foreignersthat should not receive money. That is the old Conservative party, just as nasty as ever.
	I have shared many a pleasant Select Committee day with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), but she seemed to argue that children and young people should no longer be a priority, and that we should not expressly consider their needs when it comes to lottery allocations. For her, it seemed to be a question of veterans in, children and young people out. I think that that is a false dichotomy.

Julie Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: No. The hon. Lady would not give way to me earlier. I told her she would regret it, and now she does.
	The debate has been depressing for yet another reason. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have seen the bandwagon tendency in full and fine fettle. We thought that some of the wheels had fallen off the bandwagon, but it is clear that it is more of a fire brigade tender and that all its wheels are rolling.
	There are important principles at stake. When we talk about lottery allocations and the performance of the lottery, we need to deal with three important matters.
	The first matter is the arm's length principle, which has been discussed in some detail. It was curious to hear demands that politicians should ensure that certain organisations should not get grants, and at the same time arguments that there should be an arm's length principle. I used to be a councillor in Hackney, and I have seen the terrible complications that can arise when councillors must decide which organisations should receive grants. My experience leads me to believe passionately that politicians should draw up the broad guidelines for applications, but that it is quintessentially fundamental that they should not be involved in doling out grants.
	The second matter that I want to raise has been skated over somewhat in the debate. It is the question whether charities should be able, or allowed, to engage in politics. I believe that charities play a vital role in bringing to the political world's attention many of the problems that affect the most marginalised groups in society. Taking away from Oxfam, Christian Aid, Help the Aged or any of the other charities that we know and love the ability to campaign would deprive the political world of an enormous resource.
	Of course, charities should not be involved in party-political engagements, and the Charity Commissioners should provide robust guidelines on the political engagements in which it is appropriate for charities to be involved, but there should not be the blanket ban on political campaigning implied by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford.
	Thirdly, several hon. Members have mentioned the matter of fair shares. Geographical parity might be desirable, but it is not the end of the story. The lottery should first try to address need. Almost inevitably, allocations to the arts and to sports will go to centres of excellence, giving rise to the sort of list referred to earlier by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). However, I still want much greater focus on the needs of communities, and especially of those communities that are most deprived.I think that the hon. Gentleman made a strong argument for the Government's decision to establish the new opportunities fund and for changing the priorities of the community fund. He made the argument for the Government.
	In my constituency, the new opportunities fund has meant that the Rhondda cardiac support group has received a grant, as have the Clydach vale community centre, which provides a breakfast club and a holiday club for children aged between three and 11, and the Pontygwaith community centre, which provides after-school places for three to 11-year-olds. The groups that I have mentioned are in three of the poorest wards in Europe. The new opportunities fund has therefore been invaluable in ensuring that more money goes to the most deprived communities in the country.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my point that constituencies around the country that have significant pockets of disadvantage are currently not accessing money from the new opportunities fund?

Chris Bryant: There is a problem in that respect. I said earlier that if, as has been suggested, one uses local authorities to decide which areas of the country are the most deprived, the result is that certain areas could be overlooked. Although I believe that drilling down into tiny communities in individual wards is trying too hard, and that, broadly speaking, we should deal with the matter at constituency level, I accept that it is a matter of legitimate dispute.
	I turn now to the community fund, and two grants just made from that source. One grant, of #199,000, has gone to the Cwmparc community welfare association in my constituency. The other grant relates to a debate that was held yesterday in Westminster Hall. The Parent Project UK has just received #45,000 to help it provide support and understanding for people suffering from Duchesne muscular dystrophy. In that connection, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who has already made it known that he is in the Chamber. However, constituencies such as mine still only receive some 40 per cent. of the average allocation nationally.
	I welcome the changes introduced by the Government, and devolution has made possible greater accountability on the part of the funding organisations. I support the specific measures for former mining constituencies and this summer's announcements, bearing in mind the difficulties in trying to ensure that genuinely deprived areas receive the most support.
	Finally, there has been some talk from Conservative Members about political correctness. I am proud to be politically correct if that means treating everybody equally. Yes, I am politically correct if it means turning my back on the knee-jerk xenophobia and homophobia that we have seen this evening. Yes, I am politically correct if it means saying that charity does not begin and end at home and if it means supporting the most needy, even if they are not necessarily the most respectable. I am politically correct if that means thinking before believing everything that appears in the Daily Mail.

John Greenway: It is entirely appropriate that the Conservative party, which created the national lottery, should use one of its supply days to debate one of the great successes of social policy of recent years and discuss what Parliament and the Government should do to ensure its continuing success. The Secretary of State described our debate as opportunistic, but without the debate we would not have had a statement on what many think is the worst crisis affecting the lottery during its eight years of existence, nor would we have been likely to have a debate on the Secretary of State's consultation papers.
	When the lottery was launched eight years ago, no one dared predict the scale of success that has in fact been achieved. However, the march of success has now falteredbadly so in recent weeks. If we are to have any hope of halting and reversing the decline, we need to understand why fewer people are buying lottery tickets. I was astonished that the Secretary of State had nothing to say about the fall in lottery ticket sales. It was always obvious that some players would lose interest, but the recent drop in sales is due to more than player fatigue. The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) was rightthe adverse publicity attached to criticism of just a handful of grants has deeply damaged the public's trust in the lottery. However, it was the Home Secretary who first criticised the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, not the Conservative party. The criticism from the Home Secretary and others has created a perception that more deserving causes are losing out to the benefit of organisations that do not command widespread public support or respect.
	In an effort to bring down the temperature a little, let me be the first to acknowledge that there have always been controversial grants, and probably always will be; when we were in government, I raised precisely that point with the then Prime Minister. That is part of the price of sticking to the arm's-length principle. Nevertheless, some of the beneficiaries of recent community fund grants should have come as no surprise to Ministers.
	In 1999, the community fund guidelines were amended. That has been acknowledged. Ministers both promoted to Parliament and approved the community fund strategic plan, which included specific reference to targeting organisations supporting asylum seekers and refugees. That in itself was not the problem. What appears to have been lacking was a sufficiently robust regime for grant approvals to prevent any organisations that benefited from the programme supporting, for example, moves to prevent the deportation of criminalsthe Home Secretary's criticismor engaging in doctrinaire political campaigns way beyond what should be acceptable from an organisation in receipt of public money. As the Secretary of State has said, the community fund appears to recognise that. However, the solution is not to abolish the community fund or the other distributors. I welcome the timely reminder given by the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), about the second licence promise to the distributor bodies. We need to improve internal procedures and reconsider the guidelines that the distributors are given by the Government.
	I profoundly disagree with the Secretary of State's comment that there were flaws in the lottery structure. There was nothing seriously wrong with the structure of distribution established for the lottery at the outset, although its priorities were always bound to develop. What has happened since, under this Government, has undermined public confidence in the lottery. In particular, the creation of the new opportunities fund has corrupted the crucial principle of additionality. One needs only to talk to the other funding bodies to know how deeply that is resented in the country and throughout the lottery scene. If we want the lottery to support health and education in the form of schools and hospitals, we should not do so through an organisation that has such close ties to Government Departments, mandated to fund initiatives that are central to the Government's policy strategy. Government policy initiatives relating to school sport, for example, should be funded out of taxation, not the lottery. That is not the same as saying that schools should not benefit. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), Sport England has funded school projects in my constituency, provided that they are for community use.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) was rightwe are not against the projects. He rightly questioned the method of funding. The Government seem to treat the new opportunities fund as an extension of the Exchequer. How often have we heard the Prime Minister announce public spending commitments, only to discover later that they will be largely funded by the lottery?
	The public recognise that the lottery is increasingly being used as a means of delivering the Government's agenda rather than what schools or voluntary organisations have determined they want to achieve for their community. The lottery was established to provide an independent stream of money to support local action and self-help. In our view, it needs to return to that first principle.

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway: No, I will not, because I have only a few minutes left.
	The Secretary of State recognises that all is far from well. We agree that a review of lottery funding is appropriate, although we have different solutions to offer. We agree that we need at the very least to correct inequalities of funding between the funding bodies. The new opportunities fund receives one third, while the rest receives one sixth. That is perverse and unfair.
	We agree, too, that there is a need to make the application process easier and more user friendly. Increasingly, however, the disappointment of rejection is due to a lack of money, for sport and charities especially. That is why we have said for some time that a way should be found to enable at least a part of the significant sum of unspent money to be released to boost spending. Lottery money is often earmarked by the Government for other projects, which reduces the amount of money available for local good causes. It is as if the lottery candle is being burned at both ends, and it cannot stand the reduction in ticket purchases.
	Finally, we agree that local decision making should be enhanced. However, the consultation paper talks of establishing local awards committees, with more than a hint of local authority involvement.
	The Secretary of State has said that we should keep politicians out of the grant decision process, and we agree, but that should apply to local councillors, regional development agencies and regional assemblies as well as Ministers. The lottery should not be seen as a community resource or slush fund for local authorities or assemblies as a substitute for public funds.
	For the lottery to have a vibrant future, the twin core principles of arm's-length and additionality on which it was based but which have been corrupted under this Government must be reasserted. The Conservative party created the lottery, and we remain one of its staunchest champions. In a White Paper in 1997, new Labour promised a lottery for the people. With respect, it already was a lottery for the people, but it has increasingly become a lottery for the state. For us, any lottery worth having helps volunteers, charities and independent organisations, not public sector bodies, to improve the quality of life for our people and communities. It helps our athletes and our young musicians achieve their hopes and aspirations. It helps charities provide support for the weak and most vulnerable in our society. That was, and remains, central to the Conservative vision for the national lottery. It is a vision that we commend to the Secretary of State.

Kim Howells: We have held an excellent debate, which was refreshingly free from some of the things that could have infected it. I am glad about that.
	I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will join me in commending the hard work done for the lottery by the Minister for Sport, who owing to family difficulties cannot be at the Dispatch Box this evening. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, too, has done an enormous amount to make the lottery relevant to contemporary society.
	We have heard many excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made an important point about ticket sales and income from the lottery. We expect lottery sales to be well over #4.5 billion this year and to contribute well over #1.2 billion to good causes. That is a large amount by any reckoning and it is hugely important for good causes of every sort throughout the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mark my words: it is extremely important that we help in every way we can to sustain that level of income. That point raises questions which have not been discussed today about the nature of the gains or how they should evolve. Those essential questions have been absent from the debate.
	I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for making an important point about ensuring that many small outlets do not lose their lottery franchise. I am sure that he and other Members will want to know that Camelot introduced sales incentive schemes earlier this year to ensure that the money for good causes is maximised. Obviously, Camelot wants the maximum number of outlets. I understand that the company is spending time with every retailer who is experiencing difficulties and is in danger of losing their terminal. Camelot field executives have instituted a training period of more than 26 weeks to help such retailers to reach their weekly sales targets.
	The hon. Gentleman's comments were important, because the last thing we need is for shops, often in vulnerable areas, to lose the attraction of the lottery. Ultimately, the decision for Camelot is commercial, as it should be. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interestedI certainly wasto learn that more than 100,000 retail outlets are on a waiting list for a line terminal.
	The hon. Member for Colchester and other Members asked whether sport was suffering. School sport alone will receive #750 million. That is a great achievement that, hopefully, will produce the goods in terms of winning teams. Most important, however, is the fact that so many young children will be involved in activities that they would never otherwise have taken part in. That is a great step forward. We should celebrate it, not knock it.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised the issue of balances, which has been extremely important since the lottery began. I am sure that he knows that the Government are working with the distributing bodies to ensure that lottery funds are not only committed to projects, but paid over to project operators as quickly as possible. We want lottery funds to give the greatest and fastest possible benefits on the ground.
	My right hon. Friend was right to highlight the fact that the balance is enormous: about #3.6 billion. The lottery distributing bodies forecast that it will more than halve, to #1.6 billion, by March 2004. I assure him that the Government attach high priority to ensuring that that reduction takes place so that good causes will benefit to the greatest extent from the money raised by the lottery.
	The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) reminded us of how the money can be used. She painted a vivid picture of the difference that it will make in her constituency, especially as regards health care. Quite properly, she referred to the accountability of quangos. I use the word Xquango, as it would take too long to explain it. I feel strongly about quangos. Sometimes, they work extremely well; at other times, they do not work too well, but they should always be accountable. As I come from Walesa country that seemed for a long time to be run by wholly unaccountable quangos, although we have changed thatI have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady's comments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) described some of the splendid schemes in her constituencyfor example, the out-of-school clubs that are such a boon. She asked the House to understand that we owe a duty to fund small but vital grants for organisations that will never receive publicity. Such organisations will certainly never be controversial like those that, through controversy, actually win funds. Lottery funds are the lifeblood of the organisations to which she referred and I support her observations.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) urged us to consider carefully the simplification of the application process. That is an important point. He and other Members will be pleased to learn that, as part of the current review of lottery funding, we are examining the application process. The review has resulted in several proposals to improve the process, including a single application form, electronic applications and one-stop shops. Those innovations could bring real advantages.
	There were many contributions, and I cannot answer them all this evening. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was right to refer to community hallsanother important issue. He will be pleased to learn that we have been working with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and taking a lead on a cross-cutting review of the funding for village halls, in liaison with all the stakeholdersif I may use that terrible wordincluding the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to demonstrate the amount of funding needed to develop village halls. The review will also examine the funding process and other issues such as access for disabled peopleto which the hon. Gentleman referred. Such access can be expensive but it should form part of the civil rights of disabled people. We shall certainly not try to get around that problem.
	There were many contributions

Bob Spink: rose

Kim Howells: I cannot give way now. Indeed, I may have been about to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask.
	Many Members referred to the need to ensure fair shares. My remarks may be a little controversial, but coming from a constituency that until recently was a coalmining constituency, I can say that the greatest poverty that we have suffered is a poverty of aspirations for ourselvesnot necessarily for our childrenand for our communities. We should start to forget the history involved; otherwise we could argue with each other from now until the end of time. If we do not raise that level of aspiration and start looking to the sky for the future of our communities, we will never achieve any of the improvement that is so important to us. That poverty of aspiration is at the heart of many of the problems that have been experienced with the lack of funding going to some constituencies. There could be many reasons for that, but we must tackle it quickly. I commend the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done in trying to draw together such constituencies to discover how we can improve matters.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made an impassioned plea, and properly so. We owe those people who defeated fascism, the Nazis and the rest of those scum a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. We must take care of those people and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words will be heard outside the House. They have certainly been heard inside the House

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 391.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the fact that the Lottery has so far generated over #12 billion for investment in good causes and has brought much needed support for sport, the arts and heritage, charities, and organisations dealing with health, education and the environment; notes that the Lottery has created funds for projects to mark the new millennium; also notes that the typical constituency has received millions of pounds of Lottery funding, often transforming local communities and their economies; welcomes the contribution that Lottery funding has made throughout the United Kingdom; believes that Lottery players can have full confidence in the Lottery and in Lottery fund distribution; and welcomes the current review being undertaken by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Lottery continues to make the fullest possible contribution to the nation.

Mersey Tunnels Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
	That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
	That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
	That all petitions relating to the bill which stand referred to the committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the next session;
	That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
	That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words Xunder Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) were omitted.[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
	Question again proposed.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: As the sponsor of the Bill, I wish to speak in support of the motion, which is procedural and not about the Bill's merits.
	The Bill is promoted by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority, which together with its passenger transport executive is known as Merseytravel. The PTA comprises councillors from the five local authorities on Merseyside: Knowsley, Liverpool city, Sefton

Peter Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The sound system does not seem to be workingnone of us at this end can hear a word my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will ask for that to be investigated. I could hear the hon. Lady perfectly well, but perhaps that could be examined. May I appeal to the hon. Lady to raise her voice in the meantime?

Robert Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of clarification. If the motion were passed this evening, would there be no further Second Reading of the Bill in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the motion were passed, the Bill would resume in the next Session at the position that it has reached up to now. Second Reading has been obtained.

Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, you tabled this motion, which, as I understand it, has the carry-over effect. Is it right to presume that the promoters of the Bill made representations to you that there should be a carry-over, as distinct from a revival? I understand that that would have been an alternative possibility.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion would not have been on the Order Paper had I not received representations.

Andrew Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are those representations in the public domain? I just ask as a matter of inquiry.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not clear that this is part of a perfectly proper procedure? There has been a very long debate about the Bill, which has implications for a lot of local authorities. We are not doing anything revolutionary. Is this not the same procedure as normally happens under carry-over procedure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We are operating perfectly in accordance with precedent. Nothing unusual has taken place.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The passenger transport authority comprises councillors from the five local authorities on Merseyside: Knowsley, Liverpool city, Sefton, my own authority, St. Helens and Wirral. All those authorities support the Bill, as does Halton borough council, which is responsible for the Runcorn crossing of the Mersey.
	The promoters have placed a statement in support of the motion in the Vote Office. As we are debating a procedural motion, this is not the occasion on which to discuss the Bill in detail. However, it may be helpful to remind hon. Members about the purpose of the Bill and its progress through the House.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Lady look at paragraph 12 of the promoter's statement in support of the carry-over motion, which asserts,
	XThe Bill has all party support within Merseytravel?
	Is she aware that Councillor Jacquie McKelvie, the Conservative representative on Merseytravel, is against the Bill and voted against it on 25 July?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation. I am afraid that I was not aware of that fact, and I will seek further details after the conclusion of the debate.
	The Bill was introduced in January and received its Second Reading on 9 July, after which it was committed to an Opposed Bill Committee. That Committee was due to consider the Bill earlier this month, but it had to be cancelled because one of the petitioners could not attend, unfortunately.
	The Bill would amend the County of Merseyside Act 1980. First, it would replace the present tunnels' toll revision procedure, which is complex, lengthy, costly and always involves a public inquiry, with an index-linking mechanism, which would end the need for Merseyside's council tax payers to fund the operating deficits that the current procedures almost invariably produce. Secondly, it would provide that any real-terms increase in tolls would need to be approved by the Secretary of State.

Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend is doing her best to put her case before the House, but does she accept that, in fact, the current figures do not show a deficit? The toll produces a break-even state of affairs and has done so for some years.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: That inquiry would have been better made on Second Reading. I wish to speak to the motion, which is procedural.

Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I adhere to the ruling that the motion is narrow, but surely, if an hon. Member raises a matterthe hon. Lady raised the substantive issue of the toll deficitother hon. Members can respond.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not wish to hear a detailed debate about the substance of the Bill. If the motion is carried and there are further debates on the Bill, there will be opportunities for the House to consider detail. I am allowing the hon. Lady, in support of the motion that she is moving, to make a summation of the general purport of the motion to advance the Bill, but I shall not expect her to dilate too much on that either.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Bill would allow any surplus income to be used for local public transport services on Merseyside. It would remove the requirement for tolls to be reduced when the tunnel debts have been repaid. Lastly, it would permit Merseytravel to carry out noise insulation work on the properties near the tunnel approach roads on the Wirral.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is important to make it clear that we are not debating the Bill's content, the charges, or the rights and wrongs of who does and does not support it; we are talking about whether it should be allowed to proceed, which would give hon. Members of all political persuasions the opportunity to comment on many of those matters later. Attempts to stop the right to discuss that procedure would be unhelpful.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that significant contribution. She is a distinguished hon. Member, and she has adequately and generously identified the reason why we are here this evening, which is to discuss not the Bill's merits, but a procedural motion.
	The House has already committed the Bill to an Opposed Bill Committee, and the motion will allow proper scrutiny of the Bill to take place in that Committee. As a precursor to that scrutiny, the Government have reported on the Bill and made it clear that they have no objection to its key provisions. Promoters and petitioners are entitled to expect Parliament to give careful and reasoned consideration to private Bills on their merits and, by convention, the House allows such Bills to be carried over to enable that to happen. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Frank Field: Two almost unique circumstances come together in the Bill, which warrants more than a debate on a simple procedural motion. The Bill would delegate tax-making powers from the House to a transport authority, and linked with those powers is this procedural motion to carry over the Bill into the next Session. Over the years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some hon. Members have tried to catch your eye to try to ensure the success of our own measures, which have fallen at the end of a parliamentary Session. Although such a motion is not unique, it would be wrong to suggest that it is a common occurrence.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has rightly said in the past, many aspects of the measure have support throughout the House. It is wrong for a transport authority to have to return to the House every time that it wishes to make the smallest change to a toll. It is clearly important that the transport authority can raise funds to manage the tunnels safely in Merseyside. It is important that the toll helps to pay off debts that have accumulated in the past.
	It is also important that the measure gives the power to protect those tenants at the mouth of the Wallasey tunnel who do not gain financial support to install double glazing so that they are not disturbed by the noise emitted from the vehicles of those who use the tunnel. On all those fronts, there is general agreement in the House that this is a sensible measure. However, under the measure, the House would delegate tax-making powers to the authority, and I wish to speak about that briefly.

Stephen Hesford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the problems involved in the cumbersome procedure under which we labour tonight have been dealt with in public Bills? In the past, original legislation was amended by public Bills, not necessarily by this type of legislation. The benefit of that is that the entire House takes part in debating the legislation in the normal way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be a better procedure for dealing with the issues that he properly raises?

Frank Field: That intervention shows that my hon. Friend knows much more about the procedures of the House than I do. I am certainly persuaded by his argument, but I am not sure whether it helps me to make my substantive point.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; there is always a frightening element in any intervention by a Cheshire Member in a Liverpool fight. However, I should point out to him that the advice that he has been given is not totally accurate. Of course it is almost accurate, but not totally accurate. The motion is not unusual or unique, and it has implications for all local authorities on both sides of the Mersey. I hope that hon. Members will not confuse the content of the Bill with what is a procedural motion. I would be very sorry if any Labour Member were to seek to stop debate or hinder the progress of a Bill not on what is actually happening, but on the content of the Bill.

Frank Field: That brings me to the substantive point: if the Bill were to proceed and be successful, it would give an authority in Merseyside tax-making powers. We all know that, if we do not want a measure to proceed, we use whatever means we can to prevent that from happening.
	I have lobbied the transport authority to say which aspects of the Bill I support and which I do not, and I have asked it whether it will accept the amendments that I have tabled. It has successfully drafted a letter back saying that it would say whether it supports those amendments after tonight's vote. In those circumstances, although I support much of the Bill and said in a brief intervention in the long speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South that I would vote for the Bill on Second Reading, I will vote against the carry-over motion tonight.

John Pugh: I shall try to be brief and to stick to the procedure. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) may wish to contribute in his usual laconic way, and I would hate him to have to hurry.
	Here we are again, debating a piece of legislation and trying to keep it alive. I would like to refresh hon. Members' memories of the reasons why we find ourselves in this position. Parliament has a procedure for private Bills, which we can all identify but which makes it virtually impossible for a private Bill of this nature to proceed. Such a Bill is in danger of being killed by circumstance rather than by a decision of Parliament. This is almost a textbook illustration.

Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a Bill can be killed by incompetence? Is that not the case in relation to this Bill and its promoters?

John Pugh: That has yet to be demonstrated. What was demonstrated last July was how easy it was for a Bill to be killed simply by the contribution of one Memberone Member had the power and capacity to talk it out and decide its fate. It would not have mattered whether that Member were backed by millions, by himself or by the press; he had the capacity, the potential and the ability to do so alone. Some may be unhappy with a majority decision in this place, but many more are unhappy with what is effectively a minority decision. No one in the country, the media, the Chamber or anywhere else would be prepared to stand up, not for opposition to the tunnels Bill, but for the principle that a serious issue for the House might have been decided by the filibustering of one Member. That procedure is antique.

Andrew Miller: If the hon. Gentleman is such a purist in terms of democratic procedure, does he agree that the Bill's promoters should find a mechanism to negotiate and to raise the issues with people in my constituency who suffer the tunnel tolls on a daily basis?

John Pugh: I was coming to that point. As a relative newcomer to the House, however, I must say that deciding a matter of principal public importance in the way that we do is about as sensible as making public policy by examining chicken entrails. I daresay that if there were mention of chicken entrails in XErskine May, there would still be some staunch opponents of that procedure, too.

Frank Field: I disagreed strongly with the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on Second Reading, as I thought that we should advance and see whether the transport authority would be reasonable in accepting amendments. In relation to the hon. Gentleman presenting such a line against my hon. Friend, however, most of the successes of Back Benchers in the House have resulted from employing the very technique that my hon. Friend employedthey denied time to the rest of the House to get a measure through.

John Pugh: The fact that Back Benchers have to employ that technique is a criticism of the procedures of the House. If the opponents of the Bill believed that something was amiss democratically, it would be possible and conceivable for them to recommend another procedure. They could, for example, suggest that the decision should not be made in the House but should be devolved to the local authorities of the area. They will not do that, and they will not urge the Government to do that, because they know what the result will be.

Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Pugh: If I may, I shall proceed with my point.
	If the majority of the councillors, elected by the majority of the people on Merseyside, were asked how they would vote on this recommendation, they would unquestionably say that the Bill should proceed and not that it should be blocked by the filibustering of one individual. I am amenable to all suggestions on procedure, and if there were a wish to do it another way, we could have a vote

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to use the word Xfilibuster, as it is forbidden by the rules of the House. I also remind him that it can be difficult to know whether some of his colleagues in the Liberal party are making their normal speeches or filibustering.

John Pugh: With due respect, in this case, two wrongs do not make a right. I shall use whatever word the hon. Lady suggests is appropriate to describe such a performance, but it is not an elegant or attractive performance for the public at large. It does not indicate that this is proper democratic establishment. We need a procedure that allows us to make adequate progress with a private Bill, and we do not have such a procedure.

Andrew Miller: I am attracted by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but he still has not answered the point. As he is a member of a minority party, surely he understands the need to protect the rights of minorities. My constituents have no say in this matter, yet they suffer daily the penalties of tunnel tolls. Under his mechanism, how would my constituents get a say in the decision-making process?

John Pugh: May I suggest that there are individuals in the hon. Gentleman's constituency called councillors? Some of them will be called Labour councillors, and some of them will be asked questions about what they stand forI presume that they could be asked about the Mersey Tunnels Bill and lobbied by their constituents. A set of arrangements exists. The hon. Gentleman would not, however, agree with the procedure that I recommended a moment agoletting the councils decide.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman must understandperhaps it is a question of geographythat while Southport is in Merseyside, Ellesmere Port and Neston, although it is on the side of the Mersey, is not in Merseyside but in Cheshire. My constituents, therefore, are not covered by the promoters of the Bill. They are substantial users of the facility but have no say under the mechanisms that he suggests.

John Pugh: Clearly, the mechanism can be perfected. I have had no indication that the opponents of the Bill are interested in making the process more democratic. They are simply interested in getting their way, as they have supported a procedure that I regard as arcane and unworthy of the House.

Stephen Hesford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I agree with the direction of his argument. Does he accept that there is a democratic deficit in using this procedure? Is it not therefore inherently likely that there will be a deficit in representation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) suggests, in the determination of what is, in effect, a tax-raising power?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me try to assist the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I remind him that this is not a debate about the generality of the procedure on private business before the House. It is about whether this particular Bill should be granted a carry-over.

John Pugh: The principal thrust of my argument is that we have had a debate before on the merits of the proposed legislation. The net effect was that a majority of Members attending at the time voted that it should be continued. Owing to circumstancethat is allwe have not advanced to the next stage. We must now repeat the performance, and the same pitfalls may arise with the Bill's promoters. A majority vote of the House should be decisive. If it is not decisive, and if, for some reason, not enough Members are present tonight and the Bill falls, that will proveI am forbidden to use the word Xfilibuster but I will use whatever appropriate word I am guided to usethat such a fundamentally undemocratic procedure will carry the day. Any Member with an interest in democracy and in carrying forward the views of the House and of the people of Merseysiderather than allowing matters to be determined simply by the fact that a Member is capable of speaking at lengthshould vote for the continuation of the Bill.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: A load of rubbish is being talked tonight. I only want to make a small contribution to the debate, but it is important to make a few things clear.
	The House will decide whether the Bill is good on the basis of the debates that take place. Not only is it a fact that Members use procedural methods known to all of us to hold up or to progress legislation, but I regard it as one of the few minor rights left to Back-Bench Members, most of which are being rapidly taken away from them by a Government who ought to know better. Tonight's debate has been very narrowly based, and I have tried to keep out of it as I think that it is finely balanced. The various interests in the Bill must be considered, and I do not intend to cross the line by discussing that this evening. What is important, however, is that if there has been a long debateit has continued over several monthsthe least that we can do is allow the Bill to proceed. It is not the end of the debate on the Bill, as there will be other points at which other aspects can be debated. Amendments can be tabled and the legislation can be altered. Therefore, the motion will not close off debate on issues that concern both sides of the House.
	It is clear that the Bill concerns Members with constituencies on both sides of the river. My involvement in the issue is simply the result of my interest in transport. I know the implications and difficulties that will arise if the Bill does not go forward, but I am prepared to accept that those with a constituency interest take a different view. However, my point is slightly different. I am not surprised when Members of Parliament use procedural methods to try to hold up private Bills or when people say, XIf the Bill does not go forward, it will cost the ratepayers on Merseyside a great deal of money. I understand why they do that.
	Given the opportunity, I will cast a vote tonight and my decision will be determined by the fact that I believe that we should continue this debate. It would be an imposition on the ratepayers to return to square one and start again. That is my only concern, but it is important. The House of Commons has a responsibility to think in those terms before it commits local authorities to a great deal of extra expenditure.

Bob Spink: I take issue with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who said that carry-over would not frustrate debate on the Bill. That is not my understanding, and I seek explanation from someone as to what the actual procedure would be. I want not to discuss the Bill's merits but simply to explore the procedure. If the Bill is carried over, the motion states:
	XThat in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed through those stages.
	The Bill will then simply proceed to a Committee of four Members of Parliament and they will take evidence, discuss the Bill and think carefully whether to accept the Bill as it stands or to reject it as a whole. They will consider whether any amendments might make it acceptable, and their decision will be reported back to the House. It would be very unusual for their decision to be varied by the House. The precedent is that their decision should simply be accepted.
	The Bill's promoter and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) are nodding to suggest that my understanding is correct but, if I am wrong, the House will have the ability to debate and discuss the detail of the Bill again. However, I believe that my comments on the procedure to be adopted are accurate.

Stephen Hesford: In an intervention on the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), I explained the reason for this debate. We are here to discuss the Bill because of the ineptitude of its promoters and the decrepitude of the system under which it has been proposed.
	Hon. Members may know that this is not the first Bill to have come from these promoters. They started the process in 2000. It is their fault that they withdrew the first Bill and then came up with a second one. Although I accept what you say about the procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why should the House be asked to agree to a procedure that is rarely used just to save the promoters time and effort, when it is their fault that they found themselves in this position? Why should the House assist them when their own goal caused us to be here?
	The promoters have been dilatory. When they first introduced the Bill, the office of Ways and Means offered the Bill a slot before the one that they eventually accepted. They declined that offer, thereby losing at least a month, if not two, of the legislative cycle. It is their fault that the Committee to which the Bill should have gone after Second Reading could not, for administrative reasons, be set up in September. Why should the House have any sympathy for the promoters, given that this problem is their fault? I shall discuss the decrepitude of our procedure more fully later.

George Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), he would have discerned that the delay did not result from a request made by the Bill's promoters. The request came from elsewhere.

Stephen Hesford: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I absolutely accept that he believes that. None the less, I take issue with him. The problem is entirely due to the promoters ducking out when they had the opportunity to take the Bill up in May or June instead of in July. That is my understanding.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. What evidence would he require, and be comfortable with, for us to prove our position?

Stephen Hesford: This is not a court of law; it is the mother of Parliaments. I am afraid that I cannot take up that intervention.
	Sadly, the two Bills have had a bad history. The first Bill contained a different formulation of schemes from the second one. The various schemes are misplaced and they are as misplaced as the position that their advocate in this place took on an earlier occasion. We are where we are because of thorough incompetence.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for raising an interesting point in an intervention. This motion is not the only procedure available that would enable such a Bill to survive. I am not sure if this is the right term, but there can be a resurrection motion.

Andrew Miller: A revival motion.

Stephen Hesford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There can be a revival motion in the following Session, and that is better than the motion before us. No matter how many mistakes the Bill's promoters make or how many further opportunities to further the Bill they fluff, they carry on in what psychologists might describe as a dissociative state in their approach to legislation. They seem to be stuck in their own tunnelone from which they cannot get out.
	The motion raises a constitutional issue for my constituents. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I rehashed the debate on Second Reading.

Robert Wareing: I know that my hon. Friend does not want to repeat what was said in the previous debate. However, has he read the edition of the Liverpool Echo that appeared on the Saturday after that debate? A huge article on the front of the newspaper and a column inside tore to shreds the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) that persuaded many Members. If people had been made aware of those views

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not returning to that debate, and I shall certainly rule it out of order if any further attempt is made to do so.

Stephen Hesford: I understand my hon. Friend's point.
	It is clear to me, as I hope it is to other hon. Members, that despite badly losing the debate on Second Reading, when we heard an incomparable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), the House was deprived of an opportunity to tackle this serious issue in a comprehensive and useful manner. The arcane procedures under which we labour prevent us from doing that, which was the very point made by the hon. Member for Southport.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In giving advice to the hon. Member for Southport, I ruled that the debate is not about the procedures that affect private Bills. If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate the subject, I am sure he will find a means of doing so, but it will not be in the debate tonight.

Stephen Hesford: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall pursue that for a moment. The procedure is unusual. Private Bills do not come before the House every day. Some understanding of the stage that we have reached is vital for the House when it decides whether this is the

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The procedure might not come before the House frequently, but it is a normal and familiar procedure. The Bill has obtained a Second Reading. The only question tonight is whether we allow it to be carried over into the next Session.

Stephen Hesford: Well

Frank Field: Although it is proper that we are guided towards the fact that the procedure is normal, does my hon. Friend agree that it is abnormal to have a Bill that gives tax-making powers to a transport authority? No one is against people paying to use the tunnel and for its upkeep. No one is against people who use it paying off the debt that has accumulated. No one who uses the tunnel and pays the toll is against repaying the local authorities that, out of the goodness of the taxpayers' heart, bailed out the project many years ago. No one who uses it is against those tenants and residents who live around the Wallasey tunnel being properly protected. What is at stake, however, is a Bill that allows a transport authority to raise money that can be spent on things that have nothing to do with the tunnel

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken once. He cannot speak a second time.

Stephen Hesford: I agree with my right hon. Friend.

George Howarth: I believe that my hon. Friend, who is an hon. Member of the House, inadvertently misled us. He said that delays in the procedure were brought about entirely as a consequence of the actions of the promoters. I have checked the facts. Second Reading could have taken place in May. As that would have been in the middle of local elections, it was decided that that was not an appropriate time to debate the Bill in the House. The Committee had the opportunity to meet in October. The request for that not to proceed came not from the promoter, but from one of the Bill's opponents, the north-west Trades Union Congress.

Stephen Hesford: I am happy to go round in circles, if my hon. Friend so wishes.

George Howarth: I am not asking my hon. Friend to go round in circles. For the purposes of accuracy, I am merely asking him to amend the impression he wrongfully and, I am sure, inadvertently created.

Stephen Hesford: We have to agree to differ. My hon. Friend is not right.

Bob Spink: I did not intend to intervene, but I have a duty to inform the House, as an independent person, that the facts set out by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) are absolutely accurate. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that and hope he accepts it.

Stephen Hesford: The House must reach its own conclusion on who is right. I do not resile from my position. I genuinely believe that I am right; others may have a different view.

John Pugh: As the hon. Gentleman is in a position to review his errors, I remind him of what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said about the uniqueness of the Bill, which will enable funds to be used for purposes not directly related to the tunnel. I am sure that the Minister will tell him that in many transport schemes, including pay and display schemes, funds are used for a variety of transport purposes. So the use of such funds for those purposes is neither unique nor improper.

Stephen Hesford: I am not sure where that takes us. The House heard my right hon. Friend make his point, which he made well.

Frank Field: I claimed that the Bill was unique not on the grounds set out by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) but because we will never discuss the power again if we delegate it to the transport authority.

Stephen Hesford: The House should grasp that point, if no other.
	The Bill was last debated on Second Reading, when only about 130 Members took part. It was 7 pm on a Wednesday evening and the decision was based on a free vote, so it was not unlike tonight. Three out of four right hon. and hon. Members do not participate in such procedures and we are deprived of their experience and wisdom simply because this is private business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman not to talk about that in general. We are talking about a specific motion that relates to a specific Bill.

Stephen Hesford: I apologise. I shall do my best to confine myself to the narrow motion before us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. And I shall do my best to apply the Standing Orders of the House as fairly and objectively as possible. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, they may be to his prejudice.

Stephen Hesford: The serious issues raised by the Bill, especially whether there should be a carry-over, never get the discussion or scrutiny that they deserve. The procedure arises from an historical accident. The House has not prescribed the procedure in a modern sense

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman almost anticipates my ruling. He continues to talk about the procedures of the House on private business. That is not in order.

Stephen Hesford: Once again, I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I want to put on the record what the motion says. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say from a sedentary position that we have been there. Frankly, we have not. We heard some of the motion, but not all of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the motion will be in the Official Report. I do not expect it to be repeated now.

Stephen Hesford: Of course I will entirely abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I accept.
	I shall summarise the motion for the purposes of my argument, so that hon. Members have the benefit of understanding my remarks in the context of the words on the Order Paper: the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings. As I understand it, that means that the Bill will be held in abeyance, and if the procedure is not followed, the Bill will fall on Prorogation. If the carry-over is allowed, the Bill will continue its life. I submit to the House that the motion has a serious constitutional consequence, and I question whether this procedure is the appropriate vehicle for this Bill, considering its substance.Although the private Bill system may be familiar to the House, it is not best suited to legislation such as this, which contains tax-raising powers. I understood that to be the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Frank Field: My point, furthermore, was that unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom we give tax-raising powers for a year, the authorities in question will be given tax-raising powers for ever, unless we later decide to withdraw those powers.

Stephen Hesford: That is a point well made, and it returns me to my intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend. I was slightly criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for being almost right when I said that if tax-raising powers are given and problems arise with certain undertakings, those problems can be cured by a public Bill. Problems arising from private Bills sponsored by railway companies, which regularly came before the House in the 19th century, and local authority undertakings, have been cured over time. The House found that the procedure was so unsatisfactory

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the ruling that I have given, and I shall take an increasingly serious view of that. He must talk about the particular motion before the House and not the generality.

Stephen Hesford: May I then turn to the issue of suspension, which is in order?
	Normally, if a motion such as this is not before the House, every Bill that does not complete its passage through the House is quashed as a direct result of Prorogation. [Interruption.] I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) or for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) want to make a constructive contribution to the debate or whether they have just had a good dinner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave it to me to maintain the order of the House. I suggest that he get on with his speech.

Stephen Hesford: XErskine May observes:
	XJust as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases.
	That means that the suspension seeks to nullify the effect of Prorogation. I submit that the Bill does not deserve the benefit of that procedure. The effect of Prorogation is to suspend all business at once. Every Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now repeating himself, and there are Standing Orders that cover that. I hope therefore that he will not go on committing that error.

Stephen Hesford: Every Bill in the normal way must therefore be introduced afresh at the beginning of a new Session. That is, of course, other than private Bills or hybrid Bills.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my notice and, I dare say, that of a few colleagues that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), has resigned. Have you had any intimation that a Minister will be coming to the House forthwith to explain why that has taken place? As a former member of the then Education and Employment Committee, I think that the House and all those involved in education are owed an explanation, in the House, as soon as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no such intimation. This is time-limited private business that cannot be interrupted by any extraneous matter of that kind.

Stephen Hesford: I was making the point that all Bills, other than private Bills such as this, must fall on Prorogation. The inability to carry over Bills from one Session to another involves constitutional considerations and is not governed by Standing Orders. It is, in effect, a convention of the House that a Bill is not carried over from one Session to another. I know that the convention has recently been considered by the Modernisation Committee.

John Pugh: I am trying very hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's point. He is saying either that this motion is allowed by the procedures of the House, but it ought not to be, or that it is not allowed for some reason. If it were not allowed, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have given us a ruling by now. Is the hon. Gentleman's argument therefore that this motion is allowed, but in his view it ought not to be? If that is the case, he is making a substantial point about the procedures of the House which has already been ruled out of order by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Stephen Hesford: My point is that this is not simply a case of a Bill going through on the nod. The House is being asked to make a substantial derogation from the normal procedures for a Bill.

John Pugh: If that is the hon. Gentleman's point, we might as well concede it and say that he is stating the obvious. This procedure is within the legitimate remit of the House. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that it ought never to be used, so he does not seem to have an argument at all.

Stephen Hesford: The argument is

Ben Chapman: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Bill has implications for an area far wider than Merseyside, including Cheshire, north Wales, east Lancashire and areas beyond and that its promoters can purport to represent only Merseyside? Is he suggesting that the precedents set by the Bill will have an impact on other ports, tunnels and crossings? Is he suggesting that

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech on an intervention, and the content of his intervention has very little to do with the motion before us.

Stephen Hesford: Being ever mindful of the narrow point that is under discussion, but trying to do justice to the constitutional position as I see it, I must say that some of what my hon. Friend was saying is relevant to the matter under consideration.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the procedure that we are using is perfectly proper and that the procedures undergone by the Bill so far, namely the fact that it has had a Second Reading, are all perfectly in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that. We just have one matter to decide tonight: whether the Bill should be allowed to continue into another Session so that its merits can be further considered in that Session.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it true that the subsequent passage of the Bill would not preclude amendments and that it could be scrutinised at various stages if it progressed after tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is right. She knows her procedure well and I am sure that the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) could benefit from that.

Stephen Hesford: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was making the point that private Bills are designed to deal with narrow matters such as railway companies or a matter that affects a specific locality. My hon. Friend nods, and I believe that the point is relevant. I am trying to distinguish between what could legitimately be passed by means of a public Bill and what should be tackled through private Bill procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our business tonight is not to decide the Bill's merits and implications; we are considering a procedure for carry-over. The Chair has accepted the motion for debate by the House, and it is therefore perfectly proper and in order. The hon. Member should direct his attention to it.

Stephen Hesford: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want simply to present the case that because the Bill applies to the region of Merseyside and contiguous parts of Cheshire and other areas in the north-west, the locality that it covers is wider than normal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is simply repeating himself. I remind him that I have Standing Orders at my disposal to control that. I advise him to move on.

Stephen Hesford: I shall move on. Part of my prepared speech involved considering the way in which the private Bill procedure came about. However, I cannot do that and I shall therefore conclude.
	Hansard for the week of 15 to 23 December 1919 shows that the House debated a carry-over matter. I should like to read out some of the debate because it illustrates the reasoning behind the carry-over procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is in serious danger of abusing the procedures of the House. We are considering a specific motion, which deals with whether the Mersey Tunnels Bill should be carried over. I have said more than once that our debate is not about the generality of private Bill procedure and whether it is appropriate. The hon. Member has only one question to tackle tonight. If he strays outside its limits again, I shall apply Standing Orders and cause him to desist.

Stephen Hesford: The Leader of the House in December 1919 tried to bring before the House

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled on that. I shall apply Standing Order No. 42, which will cause the hon. Member to resume his seat if he does not conclude his speech within the proper terms of the motion.

Stephen Hesford: In conclusion, and bearing in mind your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask hon. Members to appreciate that the Bill is a bad measure, which is bad for the people of Merseyside. Its promoters have previously benefited to some extent from having a pause for thought. Hon. Members would assist the promoters if they allowed them a further pause.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend may consider the Bill a bad measure that is bad for Merseyside, but I thoroughly disagree. It is a good Bill, which is exceptionally good for most of the people of Merseyside who stand to gain considerably from it.

Stephen Hesford: On a previous occasion, the Bill's promoters benefited from a pause for thought. They lost the first version of the measure and, in the intervening period between the first and second Bills, they reconsidered. They subsequently presented another Bill that was substantially different from the first version. If hon. Members reject the suspension, it will give the promoters further time for consideration. It is therefore in the interests of the House and my constituents to give the promoters that time. We can do that only if the Bill is stopped in the current Session.
	I therefore ask hon. Members to reject the suspension, allow the Bill to fall in the normal way, and let the promoters present another Bill if they want to change the regime. If hon. Members agree to the motion to suspend without understanding the implications, the promoters will rush ahead. After acting in haste, they will repent at leisure.

Stephen O'Brien: I am a little disappointed that the Minister had to leave the Chamber, but in the light of recent events, he may have had to rush out to take a telephone call. We shall have to await the outcome. Perhaps he will not hold the same position when he returns.
	I apologise that I was unable to be present for the first few minutes of the debate; I was otherwise detained on parliamentary business. We are considering an important matter within the narrow limits of the motion. It pertains to my constituents, and I echo the wise counsel of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who said that those of us in Cheshire must tread carefully in dealing with an internecine dispute between those who represent Liverpool. However, as other Cheshire Members have said, we have a genuine constituency interest in so far as many of our constituents use the tunnels daily. They bring jobs and prosperity to Liverpool and therefore have a genuine connection with the city.
	I decided to make a short contribution to tonight's debate because I am the Conservative Member whose constituency is closest to the tunnels. The motion has given me the opportunity to reflect on the way in which the process is being handled.

Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen O'Brien: Yes. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had an adequate opportunity to develop his points, but I shall listen to him again.

Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his constituency is not very close to the tunnels?

Stephen O'Brien: I am sure that no hon. Member needs a geography lesson. The motor car is an amazing invention; perhaps the hon. Gentleman has come across it. It makes us very close to the tunnels.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Cheshire people not only travel rapidly through the tunnels but frequently take the wrong one?

Stephen O'Brien: Given the personal point that the hon. Lady raises, I shall declare an interest, having done just that myself.
	There is a genuine reason to look carefully at whether the motion should be passed tonight. I listened carefully to my neighbouring MP from the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich. I was nearly persuaded by her approach, but not quite. I also have to say that the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) did not advance the cause of encouraging those who might vote against the continuation of the Bill into the next Session. He did his cause no favours, particularly as he based so much of his argument on the competence of the promoters of the Bill. I did not feel that competence was a highlight of his contribution this evening, when it came to the use of the procedures of the House, so there was a slight irony in that. Luckily, Hansard tends not to record irony, so there may be some mercy in the way in which his efforts are recorded for posterity.
	The most important point is that my constituents have a right to feel aggrieved by the promoters of the Bill, who have approached this matter in a very narrow, Liverpool way, rather than consulting widely among all the potential users of the tunnel. I do not just mean users from Cheshire. I mean users from Ireland and users of the great transport links that combine with our motorway network to facilitate trade. Such consultation seems neither to have been effective nor genuinely to have taken place.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he also arguing that his constituents might be prepared to fund the deficit that might arise unless the Bill is allowed to proceed this evening?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I want to be careful not to stray into the substance of the Billwhich is a matter for a future occasion, however it arisesbut the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made it perfectly clear that at heart of the matter is the issue of local tax-raising powers. Without going into that, may I say that it has a genuine connection with the reason why my constituents feel aggrieved? In relation to that, is it better for the Bill to be allowed to continue into the next Session, with the possibility of amendments being tabled, to reflect the concerns that my constituents have increasingly been presenting to me and to other MPs from Cheshire and other counties, or to give the promotersgiven the record to datea chance to think again about the process and the way in which the Bill is constructed to take into account all the interested parties, including those who would not be caught in the net in terms of the tax being raised?

John Pugh: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point that consultation on the Bill has been somewhat imperfect. He mentioned Ireland, which is quite a way away from the tunnels. Eddisbury is possibly a little bit nearer. How far would he cast the net in this case? As I understand it, Members of Parliament in all parts of England have been informed about this. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of where exactly he would draw the linehow far south, how far east? Is he including Ireland?

Stephen O'Brien: As my name has an XO' at the beginning, I do have a certain partiality to the Irish. That said, given that the Chairman of the Transport Committee is in her place, I must say that it is critical to the consideration of the Mersey Tunnels Bill to recognise that this matter is integral to our national transport network. It has not only a transport element but a national competitiveness element which must be considered. That involves all user groups, which could include those from this country engaged in trade to Ireland, and those coming from Ireland. My view is that we should not look at this geographically, but engage in consultation with user groups and those who will be affected by anything that takes place that pertains to the tunnels. I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).

Ben Chapman: rose

Stephen O'Brien: I would like to present to the House the balance of judgment that I have had to make, but I shall do so after I have given way to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman).

Ben Chapman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular Irish dimension to this matter, in that we now have a new Irish ferry going from Birkenhead to various points in Ireland? It is a roll on/roll off service that has just commenced operations, and to reach it, vehicles will have to travel from various parts of the United Kingdom to Birkenhead through the tunnel. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that represents a very particular Irish dimension, and that the commercial dimension also has a national dimension?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which illustrates the need to ensure that all the user groups affected by whatever may take place in the tunnels should be incorporated in the process of the Bill, which has hitherto been very narrowly focused by the promoters on the needs of the areas on the north side of the Mersey which they, quite rightly, seek to represent.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that if the Bill were carried forward, the points that he is making could easily be encompassed in amendments. There would be no difficulty at all in that, because what we are talking about is the finance to be made available for a major transport infrastructure thatlike some of usis not as young as it once was.

Stephen O'Brien: I hope that I made it clear earlier that I was very persuaded by what the hon. Lady had to say in her speech, and I accept that the Bill would be amendable if it were carried over into the next Session. If that were allowed, it would, subject to the Orders of the House, appear in the next Session. I believe, however, that that would give insufficient time for the consultation of user groups and others with an interest in the matter that has so far failed to take place effectively. Otherwise, I might well be minded to agree with the hon. Lady. Although we have already had four years, they have been four missed years in terms of consultation at a level that I think is necessary to incorporate all those interests.

John Pugh: May I take the hon. Gentleman back for a moment to the Irish dimension? He is perhaps not a veteran of these debates, as some of us have been, but after the last debate, a good number of Ulster Unionist MPs voted in favour of the Bill, and those who opposed the Bill actually complained that they had expressed an opinion. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?

Stephen O'Brien: On the contrary, my view is that the House survivesjustby being the representative House of the United Kingdom, and I am delighted that any Member from any part of the United Kingdom has the opportunity to express their views, both on behalf of their constituents and in the national interest. I therefore make no complaint about that whatever.
	We need to consider the time needed to consult at a level necessary to encompass all those who have a genuine interest in this matter, including my constituents, and to adopt a more imaginative approach than the more narrowly based one taken by the promoters. Such consultation would need to incorporate many of those from whom the Chairman of the Transport Committee takes evidence in her Committee. It would need to include the various hauliers and associations. They have taken a view, but I would like to see something more overarching in terms of our national transport policy.
	I do not wish to stray beyond the indulgence of the Chair, but I think that, for instance, it would take longer than a carry-over would permit to negotiate a deal involving heavy goods vehicles that would enable the Bill to become law and enable the tax-raising powers to be established. An ever-increasing number of HGVs use the tunnel. They often travel down the Wirral and then do not leave the motorway network because of the difficulties in the Birmingham area. Instead, they go down the trunk roads, often using my constituency and my neighbour's to the great detriment of those constituencies, despite the fact that a motorway network is available.
	As I have said, a large overarching deal would be needed but would take longer than a carry-over would allow. I do not support the carry-over, because I think the promoter should have a chance to think again and start the consultation again.

Christopher Chope: Surely this is an issue not just of consultation, but of whether the promoter responds to the consultation meaningfully. I understand that 67 per cent. of respondents to the earlier consultation did not agree to the cross-subsidy from the tolls being used in the way proposed.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right.

Andrew Miller: It is unusual for me to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he will note from the proceedings of the court of referees that the promoter sought to dismiss a petition from the Federation of Small Businesses on the grounds that its area of activity was too wide. That underlines what he has been saying.

Stephen O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important example. If small business men, of all people, do not see the benefit, I think they must be rightas are my constituents. Not only do they derive jobs from Liverpool, and need to travel there; many of themcommuters who choose to live in my part of the world but to work in Liverpoolare bringing jobs and prosperity to the city. They should be taken fully into account. The narrow view of the promoter has done this whole process a disservice.

Ben Chapman: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is the second Mersey Tunnels Bill. Obviously, the legislation has already been through various stages. The hon. Gentleman may also know that, contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), the vast majority of people on Merseysideaccording to any measure I would usedo not support the Bill. The press do not support it, businesses do not support it, users do not support it and the unions do not support it. As far as I can detect, only Merseytravel supports it.
	Is the hon. Gentleman confident that, in the event of a carry-over, the Bill's opponents would rethink their position? They have had ample opportunity to do so, but have shown no sign of movement.

Stephen O'Brien: That has been something of a problem. It is a matter of personal regret to me that I could not take part in earlier deliberations because I was dealing with other parliamentary business or, indeed, other matters generally. Nevertheless, I have followed developments carefully andlike the hon. Gentleman, no doubthave received many representations. Indeed, my fax and e-mail machines seem to have been whirring overactively today, as, no doubt, have his. I have been unable to detect any support for the Bill other than that cited by him.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman may wish to make it clear whether, if the Bill falls and there is another period of some years before legislation is brought back to us, he would be prepared to suggest to the voters of Cheshire that they offer a transport subsidy to Merseytravel.

Stephen O'Brien: It would be highly presumptuous of me even to contemplate such an offer without consultation. Especially given the hon. Lady's important and respected role as Chairman of the Transport Committee, I suggest that part of the consultation should involve viewing the tunnels, as a crucial element of the national networkwhich is why I think that the consultation will require a longer process than a carry-over would provide. I respect the hon. Lady, of course, but I do not think she would rapidly join me in urging Cheshire voters to put their hands in their pockets. In any case, I do not think they have had an opportunity to examine the issues.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I did not say that I would do it; I said that the hon. Gentleman would.

Stephen O'Brien: I would be seeking as much consensus as possible, as I always do. That might include a discussion between the hon. Lady and me to establish whether we shared a view.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen O'Brien: I do not want to prolong my speech. Others want to speak, including the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth).
	I think that the proposal should go back to the drawing board. The consultation needs to be more widespread and more encompassing. The Bill should be looked at in a strategic way.
	I am glad that the Minister has resumed his seat. I hope he did not have to rush out to take a telephone call, but if he did I hope I am the first to congratulate him.

George Howarth: Any impartial observer of today's proceedings may well have been entertained, but will not have been particularly well informed. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), entertaining though he was, added nothing whatever to the debate. His first suggestion was that the people of Ireland should be consulted about the Bill. I have been thinking about that and the only Irish connection that I can come up with is that the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) had something of the Parnellites about it, although it was far less successful.
	The second suggestion from the hon. Member for Eddisbury was that the employees of Merseytravel should be sent patrolling the highways and byways of the midlands trying to elicit the opinions of drivers of heavy goods vehicles who at some point in their perambulations around these islands may have found their way through the Mersey tunnel. Entertaining though that is, it hardly takes the debate any further.
	The substance of the debate is whether or not the Bill, which has received a Second Reading, should be allowed to progress. In effect, that means that it will go into Committee. Every time my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tries to leave the Chamber, someone refers to her. As she put it in her first intervention in the debate, we are here to decide only whether or not the Bill, which has received a Second Reading, should go into Committee. I do not know why some of my hon. Friends, and seemingly the hon. Member for Eddisbury, have this appalling fear of the Bill being considered in Committee. It would be subject to a particular Committee procedure, not that which would apply to a public Bill. I fail to understand this great fear that something terrible will happen when the Bill goes into Committee. Although I understand that four hon. Members have been appointed to the Committee, I have not taken the trouble to find out who they are. I am sure that they will deal with it sensibly as hon. Members always do when dealing with these matters. It would then return to the House on Report, when there would be ample opportunity to amend it. What is so fearful about that procedure is a matter of mystification.

Robert Wareing: My hon. Friend mentioned an important point. If this were a public Bill, it would fall at prorogation. Many of us believe that enough time has been given to Mersey tunnel legislation since just after the general election. There is no justification for giving priority to this private Bill, as would be the case were it a public Bill, and I think that it should fall.

George Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the benefit of his many years' experience in the House, but he knows as well as anyone else that there is a world of difference between the private Bill procedure and the public Bill procedure. If the Government want to get a public Bill through the House, they can find the time to do so through the House authorities and the usual channels, so my hon. Friend is making a bogus point. He knows that I hold him in great affection and we agree about many issues, but on this occasion I do not think that he was making a serious point.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend also note that the Government are seeking to change the rules of the House so that public Bills can be carried over? Many of us think that that is also an interesting idea.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted too far down that road in reply.

George Howarth: As I hold my hon. Friend in such regard, I am always open to travel on any road down which she wants to tempt me. However, on this occasion I accept your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not go in that direction.
	The House should allow the Bill to proceed, and we must ask what the consequences will be if we do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West adopted the novel concept that we should always reject Bills on the grounds that the next time they come back, they will always be better. If we adopted his approach, it would be rather like Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution: if we keep it going long enough, we will eventually reach some kind of perfect constitutional state. That is a fascinating concept. [Interruption.] At this point, my hon. Friend has walked out. I cannot think why. Perhaps he has gone to consult Lenin on what is to be done.

Andrew Miller: John?

George Howarth: Lenin, not Lennon.
	While fascinating, the concept of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West is one that the House should consider with trepidation. If the principle is that the Bill should be constantly rejected because the next one will be better, it means that, round about the year 2050, it might be possible to get a Mersey Tunnels Bill through the House.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend agrees with me.

George Howarth: Clearly my hon. Friend thinks that that is a good idea, which gives us a measure by which we can judge the length of his vision, but not necessarily the strength of his arguments.
	I wish to refer to the possible consequences if we do not allow the Bill to go forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that, at the moment, the tunnels are not in deficit. He is right, so to some extent, that blunts the argument that there is any urgency. But for argument's sake, if there were a huge safety issue and the tunnel authorities had to spend money in a hurry on improving the safety of the tunnel, or on some other aspect of the tunnel management, it is possible that the tunnels could go into deficit.
	If that were to happen, the Houseparticularly Cheshire Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who understands the issueshould know that what will happen will be, as in 1992, that the council tax payers in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and others will have to find the money.

Ben Chapman: This is a nice hypothetical argument, but does my hon. Friend accept that the tunnels are making an operating surplus, that the forecast is that they will make an operating surplus for some time to come, and that the scenario that he describes is an unlikely one in the foreseeable future?

George Howarth: I have the highest regard for my hon. Friend, whose forecasting powers are legendary across the Wirral peninsula. On this occasion, he is making a prediction that may or may not be right. However, I hope that he will concede that we cannot see into the future; it is perfectly possible that something may go wrong that will acquire additional expenditure. If that took the tunnel authorities into deficit, there could be only one place they could gothe council tax payers. That may be a matter of some concern to my hon. Friend, just as it is to me. However, as I understand it, between 3 and 5 per cent. of my constituents

Robert Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth: I will, but I should tell my hon. Friend that I am trying to make a serious speech; I am not in any way trying to prolong the debate.

Robert Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend; this is a serious intervention. He claimed that the Mersey tunnels authority would have recourse to an increase in council tax only if a catastrophe or unforeseen circumstance occurred, but in such a situation it could apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in the tolls. There would be a public inquiry, and if the inquiry found in the authority's favour, it would be allowed to increase the tolls.

George Howarth: I did not bait a trap for my hon. Friend, but had I done so, it would have been a perfect one . The truth of the matter is that it would take at least 22 months between the authority's discovering that it was in deficit and going to the Secretary of State for approval, and having a public inquiry, the funding of which would probably involve shelling out some half a million pounds. In the meantime, who would pay for it? Not this House or the Secretary of State, but council tax payers in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. All five Merseyside boroughs would have to pick up the tab. My hon. Friend's intervention was helpful, although not, I think, in the way that he intended.

John Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what is being suggested is that the principle that council tax payers throughout Merseyside should be liable is good and sound?

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I do not intend to go down that road, as I suspect that to do so would incur your censure, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is legitimate for me to ask whether, if we kill the Bill tonight, the House would feel comfortable with the tunnels going into deficit and my constituents having to pick up the bill in perhaps 12 or 18 months' time. The House has the constitutional right to take such a decision, but I do not think it proper for the House to say, XWe're not worried about that. If it ever happens, the constituents concerned will have to bear the consequences.
	Such a situation is not entirely hypothetical; it happened exactly as I described in 1992, when the council tax payer had to pick up the tab.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman's argument is very interesting, but in what way is it consistent with that deployed in the lettercopies of which were sent to all hon. Membersfrom the general secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen? It states that, if implemented, Merseytravel's proposals would
	Xgenerate an additional #2.5M in revenue for local public transport per yearand an additional borrowing source, for the Merseyrail network, local bus services and the Mersey Ferries.
	The general secretary's view of the Bill's effect seems rather different from that of the hon. Gentleman's.

George Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully, so perhaps there has been some inadequacy in the way in which I have expressed myself. I am talking about what will happen if the Bill is not passed, but the hon. Gentleman is describing what might happen if it is. I do not blame him for misunderstanding me; it is clear that, on this occasion, my powers of expression were not up to it. There is a world of difference between what he and I are describing.
	I do not want to take up any more time. I am anxious that progress be made and that all hon. Members with something to say are able to say it. All we are asking is that decisions about the level of tolls should be made by the Merseyside PTA. Any change in the level would be index-linked to inflation. What is wrong with that? Why should the House prevent the PTA from having the power to make such decisions? Why is it so attached to the idea that the appropriate way to determine tolls involves the Secretary of State and a public inquiry?
	I do not think that the House should be attached to that idea. I hope that the Bill is allowed to go forward and that the motion will be agreed tonight.

Robert Wareing: I have decided to contribute to the debate for two reasons. The first is that the Bill is generally unpopular, as is borne out by correspondence that I have received from the trade unions, including Amicus, that represent workers in the Mersey tunnels. However, I shall not develop that theme, as that will require that I deal with the details of the Bill.
	My second reason for rising to speak is that I believe that the Bill's promoters have wasted enough of the House's time since the last general election. The House will recall the earlier Bill on this subject, which contained an element of privatisation. The Chairman of Ways and Means kindly made available a slot for discussion of that Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was not in her place at the time, and the Bill fell. The result was that the House finished early that night. Many hon. Members rejoice at having an early night, but the three-hour period allotted for the debate could have been used for some of the other important matters that the House has to address.
	The earlier Bill on this subject was dropped because of its clear unpopularity. The element of privatisation was removed, and a new Billthe subject of this motionwas introduced. A slot for debate was allocated, but the Bill's promoters did not take it up, using local elections as an excuse. However, anyone with a knowledge of Merseyside district councils would have known that those elections would not lead to a tremendous transformation, as only a third of the total number of councillors were up for re-election. There was therefore not going to be an earthquake that would make a difference to the feelings of those district councils in favour of the Bill.
	A second slot for debate was allocated, and the promoters achieved a Second Reading for the Billnarrowly, as they had only just enough supporters present to allow a vote to take place. Unfortunately, most hon. Members are unaware of the Bill's contents, as was the case with its predecessor. As a result, they have taken no part in the debate.
	Misleading remarks have been made, especially in the previous debate on this Bill. A misleading letter was sent to hon. Members before the Second Reading vote, with the result that many were incorrectly led to believe that the trade unions were in favour of the Bill.
	I have already mentioned the article in the Liverpool Echo on the Saturday following the debate, which analysed some of the claims that had influenced right hon. and hon. Members.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend made some observations about the Bill's promoters delaying its discussion in the House at or around the time of the local elections. In fact, as a consequence of those elections, the PTA changed from a hung authority to a Labour-controlled authority.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the unions' mass objection to the Bill. I remind him that the Bill is supported by all the district councils on Merseyside, ASLEF, Unison, Transport 2000, Friends of the Earth and the Liverpool chamber of commerce.

Robert Wareing: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but I was referring to the Merseyside TUC and all the trade unions mentioned in the Liverpool Echo article, which showed that the information given to the House on the Bill's Second Reading was misleading.
	The promoters have asked us to consider the Bill during the next Session of Parliament without another Second Reading. If we oppose the motion this evening, they will still have the right to petition for a private Bill during the next Session of Parliament. So what are they afraid of? Many arguments have been put forward in the press and elsewhere since the last Second Reading.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that the proponents of the Bill had delayed it and wasted time. He now appears to be recommending that the people who support the Bill put up with another delay by going away today and coming back another time. What is he saying? Is he in favour of delaying the Bill or not?

Robert Wareing: I am in favour of delaying the Bill now for a very simple reason: I believe that enough time has been taken up in considering the matter since the election. The House will have important issues to deal with during the next Session of Parliament. Giving the Bill more time in the next Session will preclude debate on other important issues. That is bound to happen. There is no reason why this private Bill should be given a preference that is not given to a public Bill. It is not that important, simply because the Mersey tunnels are not in deficit. They are in profit at the moment, and are likely to be for some considerable time. I acknowledge the possibility that things might change by 2050, but I suggest that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) nor I will be in this House by then, although we might be in the other placeand I do not mean the other place in the Houses of Parliament.
	It is ludicrous that we are being asked to consider the Bill yet again on a preferential basis. Let the Bill's promoters consider what has been said over the past months and, if they want, they can come back with another private Bill. I believe that around 22 November, people will be allowed to petition for a private Bill. Let them do so. I do not think that the people of Merseyside will be put out by that because, frankly, all the correspondence that I have had suggests that I should oppose tonight's motion to allow the Bill to make further progress on a preferential basis.
	The current Session, which will finish on 6 November, began just after the general election in June 2001, so there has been adequate time for discussion of, and consultation about, the proposed legislation. After such a long Session, there is no reason why the Bill's promoters should have the privilege of taking the measure into Committee in the next Session without depositing another Bill. I urge them not to introduce another Bill, however, as the present Bill has already cost the taxpayers of Merseyside enough, and I do not believe that they think it is useful expenditure. Such expenditure is certainly not urgent; that is why the motion should be opposed.
	After all, under XFuture Business in the Order Paper, we can see streams of private Members' Bills, many of which deal with serious issues, but they fall at Prorogation. There is no reason whatever

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue down that route. He is straying rather wide of the motion under discussion.

Robert Wareing: I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the House should consider what will be displaced if we allow the motion to proceed and the Bill is carried over to the next Session. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have little enough time to discuss many things, such as private Members' Bills or the reports of Select Committees, so why on earth should this ludicrous Bill, which does not have support in Merseyside, let alone the rest of the country, go ahead of all those other matters?
	Early-day motions go undebated. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has tabled one on the parliamentary approval

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, may I bring the hon. Gentleman to order and remind him to confine his remarks to the motion before the House?

Robert Wareing: I take your guidance again, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I was explaining what would be precluded by allowing this private Bill to be carried over into the next Session. It would displace much more serious measures, which may be of national relevance.

John Pugh: Earlier in the hon. Gentleman's speech, he recommended that if the proponents of the Bill are beaten today, they should return with another measure in the future. I am at a loss to understand how, if they followed his good advice, they would not displace even more measures than if they had carried on with the present Bill.

Robert Wareing: I have faith in the good sense of hon. Members. When the House has considered the arguments and realised that many misleading comments were made on Second Reading, I am confident that if another private Bill were introduced, we would have the sense to defeat it on Second Reading. We should not have to set up a Committee of four. We should not have to discuss the measure on Report. There would not be a Third Reading debate. If we accept the motion, however, the next stage of the Bill will take place in the next Session and it will be the Committee stage. The Committee will then report to the House. I assure hon. Members that the Report stage will not be made easy for the promoters of the Bill because a considerable number of amendments will be moved. The chances are that, on Third Reading, the Bill will be very different from what the promoters want.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. In other words, there is no reason why the Bill should not be allowed to continue, because it can be amended at any stage. On Third Reading, the Bill may be totally different, and agreeing to the motion tonight would not change that.

Robert Wareing: I am grateful for that comment from my hon. Friend, who is well respected in the House, but I am trying to save time. We shall have enough important work to do. We do not know what the Queen's Speech will contain, but we can guarantee that it will contain a considerable amount of legislation. That will be far more important for my constituents, and people generally, than this miserable Bill, which is so unpopular that the people of Merseyside expect their representatives to oppose it. Only a minority would concede the case for pursuing the Bill through the next Session. I hope that it will receive even greater opposition than on Second Reading, so that we may prevent this measure from wasting our time further in the next Session.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who told us on Second Reading that he was a pedestrian in 1934 when the Queensway tunnel was opened and he walked right through it. He has considerable knowledge of the issue.
	I am concerned that the statement by the promoters in support of the motion to carry over is inaccurate, as I pointed out in my intervention in the speech by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). Paragraph 12 states:
	XThe Bill has all party support within Merseytravel.
	It does not. It does not have the support of the Conservatives on Merseytravel and, on 25 July at the Merseytravel PTA meeting, Jacquie McKelvie spoke and voted against the proposal. The promoters might think that that is an irrelevance, but I suggest that that is indicative of a somewhat casual approach to accuracy, which has been apparent from several of the speeches that we have heard tonight. The hon. Lady said that we could sort that problem out after tonight's debate, but that will be a bit late. The promoters have made that statement and expect us to vote tonight on the basis of its accuracy. It is certainly inaccurate in respect of paragraph 12.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby made the point that a carry-over is not routine, but a privilege. I submit that special circumstances are needed to justify a carry-over.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I understand that no vote was held at the meeting on 25 July, so while the hon Gentleman's colleague may have dissented, there was no formal procedure by which that dissent could have been recorded.

Christopher Chope: Notwithstanding what the hon. Lady says, I am sure that if the councillor in question dissented, it is inaccurate to suggest that she supports the Bill. The fact that no formal vote was held does not mean that everyone supported it, especially as one councillor spoke against it. I am not sure that the hon. Lady's intervention alters the principle.

Ben Chapman: Given the suggestion that the Bill passed its Second Reading because of misinformation about the support of the unions and the number of hon. Members who support it, it is especially important that we are provided with accurate information. Is the hon. Gentleman disturbed that a letter from the chairman states that it has all-party support whenhowever it is expressedit patently has not?

Christopher Chope: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that he is supporting the point that I have made, and I am grateful to him for that.
	In order to justify a carry-over, there must be a set of special circumstances. Obviously, we as hon. Members take into account a number of different circumstances: for example, how far a Bill has already progressed. If we were having a carry-over motion debate when the Bill had almost finished its Committee stage or was well into Report stage, the arguments in favour of carrying it over would be much stronger. The Bill has merely had a Second Reading; the rest of the procedure has yet to be completed. That is the first relevant consideration.
	The second issue that is relevant is the extent to which the Bill is controversial. I do not think that anyone can dispute that it is an extremely controversial Bill. Labour and Conservative Members oppose it; I am not sure whether any Liberal Democrats do so. It is opposed by a number of trade unions and councillors. It is highly contentious in Merseyside.
	The third issue that is relevant to whether we support the carry-over motion was raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)the extent to which the promoters have taken on board the criticisms made on Second Reading. I was disturbed when he said that he had not been able to get any clear indication from the promoters of whether they were going to meet in whole or in part the concerns that were expressed by hon. Members on Second Reading.
	The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is not in his place at the moment, said that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead was arguing for Trotskyite permanent revolution. I do not think that he was asking for that. He was saying that, in the context of the pressure on parliamentary time, it is relevant for hon. Members to take into account the extent to which the promoters are prepared to compromise and to remove from the Bill those powers that are causing the most controversy.

John Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the appropriate time for further consultation and a response is in Committee?

Christopher Chope: If we were not at the end of the Session, considering whether the Bill in its present form should be carried through to Committee, the hon. Gentleman's point would be valid, but if the carry-over motion is not passed this evening the promoters will have to go back to the drawing board, and I suspect that they will come back with a Bill that is much more in line with the consensus that can be achieved on it, particularly on the issue of whether surplus toll income should be used to cross-subsidise other activities.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for some considerable time and must have sat through many occasions rather similar to this, on which private Bills sought to have the right to carry on. Will not he bear it in mind that this is not a private company with a very large income? In effect, it is the taxpayers of Merseyside, who have been asked whether they wish to recommence or to continue with an existing Bill that has a direct effect both on ratepayers and those who are responsible for providing a proper transport system.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Lady makes an important point. My experience goes back to a Bill that was promoted by Southampton city council, called the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill. She may remember it. I advised the council strongly that if it proceeded with a Bill that did not enjoy the support of local Members of Parliament, let alone the people of Southampton, it had a very poor prospect of success. An enormous sum was spent, but that Bill was lost.
	I suggest that, if the carry-over motion is not passed, the promoters will introduce a much less controversial Bill and there will be much less scope for amendment on Report. As a result, that Bill could well cost the promoters much less money than the present Bill is likely to cost them. The prospect is that the Bill will go through an extremely prolonged process if it proceeds in the teeth of so much opposition. That will cost the people of Merseyside an enormous amount of money. I suspect that it might be better for the promoters to cut their losses now, return to the drawing board and introduce a simpler and shorter Bill.

John Pugh: Is the hon. Gentleman making the counter-intuitive proposal that two Bills are, in fact, cheaper than one?

Christopher Chope: I am suggesting that a Bill that passes swiftly is much less expansive than one that takes an enormous amount of time. It must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Bill proceeds, it will take an enormous amount of time and cost the promoter an enormous sum because it is so controversial. The most controversial parts of the Bill should be removed and the essential part of it should be allowed to proceed.
	In 1995, the then Government issued a consultation paper on estuarial crossings, which included quite strong criticism of the bureaucratic arrangements that relate to setting Mersey tunnel tolls. We have not yet had a Government response to that consultation. I do not know whether the Minister will respond to that paper, which was issued seven years ago, but I hope that the Government will declare their policy because, sadly, we were unable to gain the benefit of the Government's view of the Bill as a result of the way in which the Second Reading debate proceeded.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The motion states that
	Xin the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session.
	Those of us who had legitimate interests were not even able to express them because of the procedure adopted on Second Reading.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My point is that a simpler Bill should concentrate on some of the key issues.
	One of the other relevant things that we should consider tonight is the extent to which what the promoters seek should be achieved through other means. Paragraph 11 of the promoter's original statement refers to the Transport Act 2000. Under that Act, it is perfectly within the powers of the Merseyside passenger transport authority to set up a charging regime to fund some of the public activities that it wants to fund under its transport plan, but if it did that, it would probably be obliged to charge more than 3 per cent. of Merseyside's population. I understand that that percentage of Merseyside's population uses the tunnels. The Bill proposes charging those travellers, whereas the authority already the power, under the Act, to charge a wider range of car users, if it so wishes, to achieve the public transport benefits that it seeks.

Ben Chapman: The hon. Gentleman mentions the fact that only 3 per cent. of the people of Merseyside use the tunnels. Irrespective of whether that figure is correct, does he accept that the proportion of people

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, hon. Members are going wide of the motion and are going more into the Bill's merits.

Christopher Chope: There are strong views about the Bill's merits. All I seek to argue is that if the promoter could achieve part of what the Bill seeks to achieve by putting in hand local arrangements using the powers given to it under the Transport Act, the justification for that part of the Bill would be removed, as would the argument in favour of carrying it forward to the next Session.
	My final point relates to my previous exchange with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East. I asked why Mick Rix, the General Secretary of ASLEF, had sent us a letter saying that, if implemented, the proposals would generate an additional #2.5 million in revenue for local public transport per year? Surely the argument that has been put forward is that the debt should be reduced first. The argument of the Bill's promoters and their supporters about the small proportion of people who use the tunnels being burdened with paying for the wider public transport agenda of the passenger transport authority is a relevant issue that we should consider this evening.
	I am disappointed that the Bill's promoters have not indicated any willingness to compromise or listen to reason. It is not too late for the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) to indicate that they will make amendments in the light of the concerns expressed, but, up to now, they have seemed keen to steamroller this highly controversial Bill through the House. Members have the opportunity tonight to pass judgment on that.

John Spellar: I want to take this opportunity to make clear the position of the Government.
	First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Claire Curtis-Thomas) on the able way in which she proposed the motion for the Bill to be carried over. I also commend all the other hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting debate. As hon. Members will know, it is traditional that the Government take a neutral stance on private Bills that do not contradict stated Government policy, and that is the approach that the Government intend to take with this Bill. That being said, the Government are not opposed to the Bill being carried over.
	The Bill includes a number of provisions. First, it would permit Merseytravel to increase tolls at the tunnels based on a retail prices index formula without having to seek permission from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and to use some of the proceeds from toll revenues for wider transport objectives in Merseyside. That latter point is, of course, broadly in line with the broader options currently available to local authorities through congestion charging. The Government are not, therefore, opposed in principle to Merseytravel's proposals to use some of the additional toll revenue for local transport purposes.
	The Bill would permit increases to toll charges in line with the RPI. The Government are not opposed to this principle, especially as the tunnels are owned and operated by a local authority, and, as such, subject to democratic accountability. In addition, the Bill would give Merseytravel the ability to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties on the Kingsway tunnel approach roads on the Wirral. The Government welcome the introduction of those new powers, as we understand that they respond to long-standing concerns voiced by local residents.
	However, the Government are also conscious of the strength of local feeling about allowing Merseytravel to increase tolls by the RPI without any check. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has previously expressed concerns about levels of efficiency at the tunnel and about the pressures that higher tolls would place on his constituents. In addition, the Government are concerned that some of the Bill's proposals for using revenue derived from heavy goods vehicles for purposes not related to the costs of the tunnels' construction, maintenance and operation could be seen to be in breach of EU directive 99/62.
	The Government's views on this Bill have been brought to the attention of the Committee in a report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. I am confident that the Committee will fully examine all the objections and concerns raised by the various petitioners.

Andrew Miller: So that there is no ambiguity, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this is not whipped business as far as the Government are concerned?

John Spellar: As I made clear earlier, the Government take a neutral stance. There will be a free vote on the Government side.I do not wish to take further time, as I understand that other Members wish to take part in this time-limited debate.

Ben Chapman: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's statement in parts. I certainly welcome the point about the EU directive and the caution about retail prices index increases without check. However, I take slight exception to his point that the passenger transport authority is a local authority with democratic accountability. It is not a local authority and does not have direct democratic accountability. Its members are nominated by councils, but they are not elected and have no democratic accountability.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend seems to be enunciating an interesting theory for passenger transport executives. The money involved is much more closely monitoredbecause they are run by local authorities and must produce accurate returnsthan it could possibly be if they were private companies. The fact that local authorities nominate to the bodies that control the money does not make the system anti-democratic. The executives make more disclosure of more information simply because they are local authorities. He is getting into a slight difficulty by suggesting that PTEs are not responsible for what they do with public money.

Ben Chapman: As my hon. Friend knows, no one could hold her in higher regard than I do, but I absolutely disagree with her on those points. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were to permit me, I would elaborate why. However, I am not sure whether you would allow me to do that.
	I shall spend as little time as possible in considering the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I believe that we have spent enough time on it already. However, if you were to indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would consider the need for a carry-over motion, and my point applies irrespective of whether it is a private or public Bill. I also want to examine some of the paragraphs in the motion in detail.
	If I believe what I read in the Liverpool newspapers, we have been overtaken by events. The press tells me that, notwithstanding the provisions in the Bill for automatic annual increases, Merseytravel now intends to apply to raise tunnel tolls anyhow through the existing public inquiry mechanism. That suggests two things to me, and partly provides a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). First, notwithstanding the views of the vast majority of people on Merseyside, the bodywhich, in my view, has no direct accountabilityintends to fly in the face of public opinion whether or not the Bill is carried over. Secondly, the Merseyside passenger transport authority recognises that it already has a mechanism for raising tunnel tolls provided that it can justify them. The Bill asks for something other than that.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that that mechanism exists at the expense of council tax payers on Merseyside. The tunnel tolls have to go into deficit to trigger a public inquiry and that inquiry takes a minimum of 22 months to report. In the interim, a deficit is built up and my hon. Friend's constituents and mine have to pay for it. The Bill seeks to remove that charge on our constituents.

Ben Chapman: My point is that Merseytravel should justify any need for increases and not rely merely on the fact that the cost of living has gone up.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the motion rather than to the merits of the charges involved?

Ben Chapman: I was trying to do that. If the Mersey passenger transport authority has a mechanism that it accepts and can use, why do we need a carry-over motion? The House has better things to do than consider the Bill further. We have much legislation to discuss which covers many issues and places demands on our meagre time. The carry-over is not a high priority for my constituents, who do not want it. They would be happier for the House to discuss a host of other issuesthe ban on hunting with hounds, the control of leylandii hedges and military action against Iraq, for instance. They would prefer almost anything to be discussed other than the Bill's carry-over. We have limited time at our disposal and much to discuss. We should not be wasting our time on the motion. Sufficient time has been spent on the Bill already.
	The motion is simple and clear cut: to carry over or not to carry over. I do not want the Bill to be carried over into the next Session. Instead, I want it to be rejected and to fail because it is foolhardy. I have assiduously studied examples of other carry-over motions. I am not sure that I have the hang of it, but I shall try to stick within the limited scope of the debate. However, I hope you understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that although we are considering the form of the carry-over, it is difficult not to stray into its substance.
	I do not understand why the Bill should be carried over. Although I think that it should not be a private Bill, I contend, as others have, that Merseytravel has not made good use of the time available to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby highlighted various ways in which time was misspent. No one has explained, however, that Merseytravel wasted time by trying to deny a voice to the unions representing tunnel workers and users of the tunnel, and to the employees and business people of Merseyside, all of whom are against the Bill. Rather than listening to their concerns, the passenger transport authority preferred to gag their representatives and continue on its chosen course by proceeding via the Court of Referees. It did not succeed because it had no case, but that did not stop it wasting time and a great deal of money. It is normal for a Bill's promoters to engage parliamentary agents. They are required to do so and there is no problem with that, but the Bill has had more agents employed in its promotion and passage than the people of Merseyside would expect.
	I want to examine the motion in detail. Paragraph 6 provides that no further fees will be charged. That must be wrong. The Private Bill Office is funded by the fees paid by the promoters of Bills. Assuming that the Bill passes all its stages, the cost will be #16,000. I do not think that the Private Bill Office can survive for long on that. It is a good deal by anyone's standards.
	Let us consider the real cost. How much does it cost for us to be here tonight? I am sure you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in 200001, the operating costs of the Office of the Speaker were #635,000. The department of the Clerk of the House and the Speaker's Counsel cost #20 million; the department of the Serjeant at Arms cost #21.5 million; and the Library cost #7 million.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should not have the right to debate private Bills?

Ben Chapman: No, I am just dealing with the idea that no extra fees should be charged, as contained in paragraph 6. Given the costs involved, it is unreasonable that no extra fees should be charged.
	If one broke down the costs that I have set out, one would find that the process is costing a great deal. It is unreasonable that no extra fees are to be charged. It is not that Merseytravel does not have the money, and it is not that it shows an unwillingness to spend. Indeed, had Merseytravel been a model of financial rectitude, we might have had to be cautious in seeking more money. You are giving me a particular look, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is telling me not to proceed with that point. Merseytravel is, as it claims in defence of some of its expenditure, a #250 million organisation. It spends profligately and we need to consider the sixth paragraph of the motion.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Given that my hon. Friend's remarks are straying on to the merits of the Bill, will he identify which costs he would like to cutperhaps those associated with health and safety or with the police who operate in the tunnel?

Ben Chapman: I was thinking more of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that have been spent on the Bill. I was thinking of the large sums spent on the politically correct but foolish measure of changing all the signs on the tollbooths from Xmanned to Xstaffed. I was thinking of the fact that Merseytravel is reported to have sent 20 people to a Court of Referees process in which none of them could have taken any part. Merseytravel has an inbuilt propensity to spend because it has a lot of money and because of the structure of the passenger transport authority.

George Howarth: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of what I am sure has been a fascinating odyssey through the whys and wherefores of the Bill. Now I, too, am getting a look from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend said that he thought that the number of police officers in the tunnel could be cut. Does he still

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly the look was not sufficient.

Ben Chapman: Merseytravel has a propensity to spend because it has money, and it is wholly unreasonable to charge no further fees.
	The seventh paragraph of the motion deals with petitions. Reference has been made to a letter from the chairman of Merseytravel which points out that the motion has all-party support. It also refers to the fact that petitions have been submitted by ASLEF, which to the best of my knowledge has no direct connection with the tunnel, and Transport 2000, whose submission was expressed in terms curiously similar to those used by Merseytravel. Those petitions were submitted after the due date, so I hope that they will not be substantially considered at any further stage of our deliberations.
	The third paragraph says:
	XA declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session.
	I have had a nagging doubt about that paragraph since the motion was first announced. In substance, the Bill will, on its reintroduction, remain the same as it has been throughout its parliamentary journey thus far. In its consequences however, it has changed.
	I draw attention to the provision that permits Merseytravel to use surplus tunnel tolls income to improve public transport services in Merseyside. I have never liked that. I believe that surpluses should be reinvested to pay off outstanding debts on the tunnels. That relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made.
	Merseytravel now claims that toll increases would fund safety improvements that relate to the European safety report of 2002. We are told that that will cost #14.2 million, to be financed through tunnel tolls. Safety is of paramount importance, and one would have believed that Merseytravel would take account of all safety considerations. However, although the text of the Bill remains the same, its intent appears to have altered. The report on which Merseytravel ultimately chose to act was by no means unanticipated.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In opening the debate, I said nothing about the merits of the Bill because I understood that the discussion covered only procedural matters. I therefore note with regret that my hon. Friend is considering the Bill's merits. I ask for your advice on that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Throughout my time in the Chair, I have reminded hon. Members of the limited scope of the motion. I urge all hon. Members who have yet to contribute to be mindful of that.

Ben Chapman: I believed that I was dealing with the paragraphs of the motion; that was my intention. As I said earlier, there is a danger of straying into the substance of the Bill. That is almost inevitable.
	The fifth paragraph states:
	XThat in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages.
	I shall not repeat the points that my colleagues have made. However, Second Reading was obtained on information that many would have perceived as misinformation. I shall not go into that.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you would consider much of the remainder of my speech to be about the substance of the Bill. I therefore conclude by simply saying that it is my hope, and that of the trade unions, the users of the tunnel and the people of Merseyside that the Bill and the carry-over motion will be rejected. I believe that if the Bill is allowed to proceed, no matter how it is amended, it will be detrimental to the economy of Merseyside, which is already disadvantaged when compared with other regions. The tunnels are the main arteries and conduits of its business. They affect everybody, not only 3 per cent. of people. The carry-over motion should be rejected.

Andrew Miller: I want to concentrate on two principal points in making my case for opposing the motion. First, I want to consider the motion in the context of changing circumstances and, secondly, as a constituency Member of Parliament, I want to present my constituents' best interests.
	Earlier, there was confusion in the exchange between the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and me. I want to reinforce my comments that my constituency falls immediately south of the boundaries of Merseyside. It is geographically in Cheshire but does not comprise any of the five authorities that make up the passenger transport authority. That is a function of history, and goes back to the days when the metropolitan county was created and subsequently abolished. It would be wrong to dwell on that.
	I simply stress that although my constituency is immediately south of the area covered by the passenger transport authority, many of my constituents use the tunnel. The Bill's sponsor acknowledged that. Bearing that in mind, I find it extraordinary that there is no mechanism in the motion to enable me to put my arguments in the context of the Second Reading debate that would normally have taken place. In fact, that possibility is precluded

Don Foster: In Committee?

Andrew Miller: It cannot be done in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because the Committee would be a special Committee on which I could not sit. Perhaps he does not understand that about private Bills.
	The motion states that
	Xin the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session
	which means that we shall bypass Second Reading. The substantive points that I have before me herewhich I shall not stray into, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would call me to ordercannot, therefore, be made. My constituents are, however, entitled to have their point of view aired on such a controversial matter.

John Pugh: There is one distinction between the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and me. They may all contain people who use the tunnel, but if the tunnel incurs any debts or deficits, your constituents will definitely not be liable, whereas mine will.

Andrew Miller: I am sure that your constituents will be far enough removed not to have an interest in this, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about debts. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down the road that he followed in his speech. My principal argument about the unfairness of the procedure in terms of my constituents' interests is that I cannot set out the case to answer the hon. Gentleman's valid point and stay in order. Of course he has a valid point. His constituents pay for the debts.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, if the Bill goes through the special arrangements for a Committee for a private Bill and comes back on Report, amendments can then be tabled? Could those amendments, which might encompass the principles that my hon. Friend is talking about, then be debated?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes, provided that the amendments are within the scope of the Bill.

Andrew Miller: That leads me neatly on to my second point, but I shall just complete the point I was making in response to the hon. Member for Southport, who is right to say that his constituents pay for the current deficits through their council tax. My constituents, who are omitted from consideration, pay the fees and are locked into a formula in relation to which they have no rights, despiteif I may remind the Government Front Bench of thisthe duty set out in this Administration's best-value legislation. That is why I strongly oppose the central thrust of the motion, which proposes that we should jump over and skip the Second Reading debate.
	On that theme, the first sentence of the motion states that
	Xthe promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit.
	If they think fit? Again, there is no consideration for anyone elsecertainly not for my constituents who pay the toll day in and day out. I do not underestimate the seriousness of the problem faced by the passenger transport authority, although I shall not develop that argument now. But the authority must also recognise that other people have rights in this matter. The wording here, though, is, Xif they think fit, not Xafter consultation with relevant people who may also be affected by the Bill. The motion before us does not, therefore, appeal to me one jot.
	Of course there are difficult issues. I think many could have been dealt with through a more sophisticated form of negotiation between interested parties throughout the region. There is a sub-regional interest

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There may well be a sub-regional interest, but it is not appropriate for it to be debated tonight.

Andrew Miller: I am arguing the caseif I maythat the word Xthey, in the phrase Xthey think fit, is too narrow. I merely suggest that the motion should have incorporated a phrase allowing for consultation with other relevant bodies within the sub-region.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: XThey are the members of the passenger transport authority, representing nearly half a million people on Merseyside. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that would constitute adequate consultation?

Andrew Miller: It would put the minority at a great disadvantage. My 70,000 constituents also have rights, and I appeal to the House to protect those rights.

Colin Pickthall: Does my hon. Friend accept that West Lancashire's citizens are in precisely the same position? Although I concede that not quite so many people move through the tunnel from the north of Merseyside to the south, a substantial number do.

Andrew Miller: But minorities are not considered in the context of the Bill. If we add all the minorities together, it surely becomes clear that the argument that the great Merseyside interests should take precedence over those of the rest of the people in the greater Merseyside area is grossly unfair.

Don Foster: My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, recently introduced a highly controversial priority access point that has restricted the movement of vehicles through certain parts of the city. No doubt many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents visit Bath from time to time. Does he believe that they should have been consulted about that decision?

Andrew Miller: I visited Bath the other day

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again we are in danger of wandering wide of the scope of the debate.

Andrew Miller: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was going to confine myself to a quip about Bath. Your interventions, however, underline the concern felt by my constituents. We have no opportunity to set out, in a structured way, arguments relating to the Bill, as we would if the Bill were re-presented in the normal way, oras my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) suggestedif a revival motion were introduced in the new session.

Stephen Hesford: Or a resurrection motion.

Andrew Miller: I think Xrevival motion is the appropriate term. I understand that that would, by definition, incorporate stages that are missing as a result of the motion.
	I am open to suggestions about solutions to the problems of the passenger transport authority, but I cannot become involved in discussion of that tonight. I strongly urge the House to reconsider its position, and support those of us who oppose the motion.

George Howarth: Between Second Reading and now, has my hon. Friend made any approach to the passenger transport authority to discuss the matters that he has raised?

Andrew Miller: That is interesting because a letter was sent to hon. Members. I accept that my office occasionally makes an error, and so do I, but to the best of my knowledge the letter of 17 October that was sent to all hon. Members was not sent to my office. That letter sets out some important considerations in respect of tonight's proceedings.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but that was not the question that I asked him. Has he personally made any efforts to contact Merseytravel to raise these concerns?

Andrew Miller: Not since the Bill received its Second Reading as I was unaware of tonight's motion, not having received the letter of 17 October, which was kindly given to me by a colleague. The issue spins both ways. I accept my hon. Friend's point, but there must be negotiations to resolve the problem.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall put the same question to him as I put to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Is he likely to suggest to his constituents that they fund some of the expense of running the Mersey tunnel?

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend, who is also a dear friend, knows full well that my constituents do fund it. They contribute huge sums of money. We heard from the passenger transport authority that non-Merseysiders put in 97 per cent. of the income. I suspect that a lot of that comes from my constituents who are locked into proceedings covered by the tonight's order in which the phrase Xthey think fit refers entirely to one part of the equation. The other part refers to people who pay tolls on a regular basis and who must also be considered.

Stephen Hesford: Can I run down a hare that has been constantly set running tonight? My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) repeatedly asks my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and others to put it to their constituents that they should pay the deficit. There is no deficit. Does my hon. Friend

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that we are now getting into the detail of the Bill rather than the motion on the Order Paper.

Andrew Miller: That is why I shall not answer my hon. Friend's question, which underlines my point about the unfairness of the procedure that we are considering whereby my constituents, among others, will not have the right to have their point of view aired in this House on such a controversial matter[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says from a sedentary position that I am doing it, but that could not be the case as I would certainly be ruled out of order.
	My second principal reason for opposing the motion relates to changing circumstances. As has already been said, this is the second attempt at a Mersey Tunnels Bill. Changing circumstances were referred to in the Second Reading debate, but they have not been developed fully and the Bill does not cover their full financial implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich would no doubt jump up and say that that could be dealt with by amendment. The changing circumstances are referred to in the statement presented by the passenger transport authority. I believe that those changing circumstances, together with the interests of my constituents, cannot be met by amendments to the Bill. I suspect that that would be extremely difficult to achieve. Reference is made to the additional burden that will fall on the authority, stemming from changing fire safety regulations after some tragic tunnel incidents throughout Europe. These substantial changes have altered the way in which the House should view the matter and, on that basis, we need to find an alternate mechanism.
	My constituents fully recognise that, one way or another, they will contribute to the costs of the tunnel, and that is right. But the mechanism in the Bill that we are being asked to carry over is wrong and excludes the rights of my constituents.
	I would question some of the technical procedures set out in the motionfor example, that
	Xon the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office.
	That may well be standard procedure, but given some of the issues about which there ought to be local negotiations, the motion does not give us the kind of time

George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you again confirm, first, that if the Bill proceeds tonight, it is amendable, and secondly, that the procedures for amending the Bill are those that have been used in the past and will be perfectly open to my hon. Friend and others to use?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am certainly prepared to confirm that that is absolutely right.

Andrew Miller: I do not doubt that point.

George Howarth: Can I take it then that my hon. Friend feels so inadequate that he would not feel capable of using the procedures of the House to table suitable amendments?

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend's sarcasm does not do him any justice; he usually makes far more intelligent comments than that. I have said that the provision would preclude a contribution at Second Reading and because of the costs that

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating some of the arguments that he has already made. Is he able to move on with regard to the motion?

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) referred to the costs involved. Because of those costs, there is a need for sensible negotiations on whether a resolution can be found. That is not possible within the time available to us.
	My arguments in summary[Interruption.] My arguments in summary are that my constituents' rights are being abused by the motion.

John Robertson: Aww!

Andrew Miller: I believe that we are here to represent our constituents and I hope that the House will give my constituents their rights when dealing with the matter. My second point concerns the changing circumstances and my third is that, as a result of the need for a sensible way forward, it would be inappropriate to squeeze the time for any potential negotiations on the content of the Bill into the tight time between now and the fifth sitting day.

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 65.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
	That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
	That all petitions relating to the bill which stand referred to the committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the next session;
	That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
	That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words Xunder Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) were omitted.

PETITIONS
	  
	Employment relations

Hywel Williams: This petition relates to the Xeight week rule whereby workers taking part in a legal strike are no longer protected by the law from dismissal after eight weeks. It arises from the recent dispute between Friction Dynamics Ltd of Caernarfon and members of the Transport and General Workers Union who were sacked after being on a legal strike for eight weeks and who are still awaiting the result of an industrial tribunal 18 months later. The petition has been signed by some 3,081 people, mainly from Caernarfon but also from Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, who state:
	Workers have a right not to suffer detriment as a result of taking legal industrial action and that this is not a qualified right and the UK Government should not make it so.
	The petitioners request therefore that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to introduce legislative proposals to amend the Employment Relations Act 1999 and remove the eight-week limit on protection for striking workers.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Michaela Scott

Hugh Bayley: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Michaela Scott of York and 1,246 other people.
	The petition
	Declares that people have for many years maintained good health by taking vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies.
	Fears that the European food supplement directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicine products will restrict the range of such products on sale.
	Requests the House of Commons to require the Secretary of State for Health to protect consumers of these products by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
	To lie upon the Table.

WESTMINSTER CORONER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Caplin.]

Chris Pond: I am grateful for the opportunity to place before the House the concerns about the conduct of the Westminster coroner felt by people who have come into contact with him following the loss of loved ones.
	I thought carefully before seeking this debate. No Member should lightly raise in the House criticisms of an individual, especially when that individual is a judicial officer responsible for such high profile investigations as the Marchioness disaster and the Clapham and Paddington rail inquiries. However, I consider that the concerns about the conduct of the Westminster coroner, expressed over a long period, raise questions not only about his own record but about the trust that the public can place in the coroner system more generally.
	The Westminster coroner, Dr. Paul Knapman, is no stranger to criticism. I first came across him through my involvement with the families and friends of those who had lost their lives in the sinking of the Marchioness pleasure boat in 1989. I worked with those families to press for a full public inquiry into the tragedy, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, granted in 1999. I know those people as determined and courageous, struggling to come to terms with the tragic loss of their loved onesa task made more difficult, I have to say, by the behaviour of the coroner, Dr. Knapman, at the first inquest. Yet in a letter of 22 May 1991, Dr. Knapman described the bereaved as
	Xa number of mentally unwell relatives and survivors who mutually support each other.
	In 1994, the Court of Appeal found that his comment to the Daily Mail, when he described the mother of one of the Marchioness victims as Xunhinged, was not merely injudicious and insensitive but bound to be interpreted as a gratuitous insult. Lord Justice Simon Brown said that the coroner's Xapparent bias towards the victims' families may have been a factor in his refusal to grant a second inquest.
	The Westminster coroner attracted further criticism when it became known that he had authorised the removal of the hands of 25 of the Marchioness victims for identification purposes. Lord Justice Clarke, in the public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster and river safety, was especially critical of the decision to mutilate the bodies of the victims when other means of identification were readily available. Lord Justice Clarke put the matter effectively in his report:
	XThe important point is that hands were not being removed as a last resort, but were being removed in all cases. As a result, hands were removed notwithstanding that dental records were being obtained or had been obtained or possibly in one case just after a dental match had been made.
	In one case, a victim's hands were removed even though the belt he was wearing contained a photograph of him, a blood donor card and the keys to his flat. Inevitably, that caused distress to the relatives of the deceasedonce they were informed. However, that was not until two years later. Information about the victims' hands having been withheld, it is perhaps not surprising that relatives were refused the opportunity to see their loved ones to pay their last respects. Some never again saw the people they had lost.
	It was some years after that event, and following criticism from Lord Justice Clarke, that Dr. Knapman expressed his regret at that decision. He said:
	XI did not fully recognise the distress that further disfigurement of the bodies might cause.
	That reveals a remarkable lack of imagination in a man responsible over many years for dealing with bereaved relatives, and it underlines the importance of training for coroners and their staff in basic human skills.
	To add insult to injury, a pair of hands was found in the bottom of the coroner's freezer, not months but three years after they had been removed. It may be that they were never used for identification purposes. Without consulting the relatives, the hands were incinerated, without the option of being reunited with the body.
	All that is public knowledge. The public inquiry report was especially critical of the fact that human tissue had been treated so casually. At the very end of his inquiry, Lord Justice Clarke learned that tissue samples taken at the post-mortem examinations of four of the Marchioness victims had been overlooked until they were discovered at Westminster mortuary in December 2000. That was more than 11 years after the individuals concerned had died. Hearing that news, the families made arrangements for the interment of that human tissue, including the choice of a remembrance plaque. However, today, I was told that the items referred to could no longer be found.

Michael Portillo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me a moment of his time. He may recall that I was Minister of State for Transport at the time of the Marchioness disaster. The terrible morning when we learned that so many people had been lost in that tragic accident is one of the most abiding memories of my life, and I have tremendous sympathy for the relatives of those who died. However, Paul Knapman is my constituent and I know that the Lord Chancellor wrote to him to admonish him for some of the events connected with the Marchioness disaster. Paul Knapman wrote back to the Lord Chancellor to express his contrition. I believe that the Lord Chancellor is of the view that the matter should be allowed to rest there, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept that also.

Chris Pond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution and I know that he knows well the circumstances of the Marchioness tragedy. I have welcomed the admonishment by the Lord Chancellor, to which I shall refer later, and also the response from Dr. Knapman. However, as I hope to show, several other concerns need to be taken into consideration. It may be that the unfortunate circumstances of Dr. Knapman's conduct in the Marchioness tragedy and subsequent events have been reflected in other cases.
	One such was the case of Susan Annis, whose parents have contacted me and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who is unable to contribute to this debate because she has other duties this evening. Miss Annis was a 31-year-old nurse who was the first of a series of victims of one of her colleagues, Kevin Cobb, who attacked women sexually, having administered midazolam, a sedative since dubbed a date-rape drug. Although Dr. Knapman detected midazolam in Susan's body, he attributed no significance to it, even though four deaths due to the drug had already been reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. A colleague of Susan Annis, Dr. John Parsley, wrote to Dr. Knapman to raise doubts about the open verdict, in view of the presence of the drug. In a letter dated 26 March 1997, Dr. Parsley warned:
	XI believe that drugs in the same class as midazolam have been used in assaults.
	Dr. Knapman wrote back saying:
	XIt takes us no farther,
	and
	XI am taking matters no farther.
	He later dismissed Dr. Parsley's warning as a Xred herring. He also did not report Dr. Parsley's concerns to the police.
	New information suggests that Dr. Knapman may well have known that midazolam was in the same class as a drug banned in America as a date-rape drug. At present, that evidence is confidential and I am passing it to the Minister after the debate for her to consider whether she or her ministerial colleagues wish to take the matter further.
	It was only when Dr. Parsley went to the police two years later, having heard that Kevin Cobb had been arrested for rape, that it became clear that Susan had died at the hands of a serial rapist, rather than from unexplained but unsuspicious causes. The tragic conclusion must be that if the coroner had taken more heed of the warnings raised by a medical colleague and had referred those to the police, Kevin Cobb might have been apprehended sooner and other women would not have been subjected to sexual assaults.
	Susan Annis's parents submitted a complaint to the Home Office about the way in which their daughter's death was treated by the coroner. The Home Office replied that the Home Secretary had no powers to investigate or comment on the conduct of individual inquests, because
	Xcoroners are independent judicial officers.
	However, the Home Office passed on Dr. Knapman's response to the complaint. It included a somewhat chilling statement that
	Xin his district, several times a year relatively young people (under 30) die where there is no cause of death found.
	No cause of death was found by Dr. Knapman in the case of Susan Annis, but we know now that she was unlawfully killed. In how many of the several other unexplained deaths every year in the district covered by Dr. Knapman is the cause of death not found because the proper questions are not asked, or evidence is overlooked? I ask the Minister to consider whether her Department or the Home Office should look again at those cases in which the Westminster coroner has recorded an open verdict, to see whether the verdict is a secure conclusion in each case.
	The hurt and humiliation because of the treatment of their loved ones' remains were not confined to the Marchioness families. In August 2000, Dr. Knapman wrote to the parents of Susan Annis refusing their request to see the file on their daughter's inquest and telling them that they would have to ask the police if they wanted to see post-mortem photographs. Astonishingly, in the same letter, written almost four years after Susan's death, the Westminster coroner added a paragraph that concluded:
	Xthe brain is still in storage at the Maudsley Hospital. I therefore have to ask you whether you would be content for it now to be incinerated in the usual way?
	That was the first that the parents had heard that the brain of their daughter had been removed and that she had been laid to rest without it.
	I have referred to the concerns expressed to me about the conduct of Dr. Knapman in two particularly high-profile cases. Some of it will have been new but most of it will not. In answer to a parliamentary question tabled by me, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department reported that, following Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry, the Lord Chancellor concluded, as the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has reminded us, that
	Xthe Westminster coroner's actions on this occasion fell below the standard to be expected of a judicial officer,
	and that
	Xhe issued a formal admonishment.[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 200W.]
	The Westminster coroner has been shown the yellow card. I ask the Minister to review the conduct of Dr. Knapman over time, not only following the Marchioness tragedy but in other cases, to judge whether it might now be time to show the red card.
	There are wider lessons to be learned about the role of coroners. I welcome the current review of coroners and death certification, which was partly stimulated by the conduct of the coroner in the Marchioness inquiry. A basic requirement is for the careful recording of information, notas in the case of the Marchioness post mortemsnotes collected in an A5 notepad. Without that careful recording of information, it is very difficult for relatives or other concerned parties to know whether an inquiry has been properly carried out.
	I have already referred to the need for training of coroners and their staff to enhance the social skills needed to deal with the bereaved sensitively. In that context, I welcome the review's early identification of a defect in the systemfailing to establish clear participation rights for bereaved people, including the provision of information. Most important, relatives must have a right to see the bodies of their loved ones. Whether they decide to exercise that right is up to them.
	No families should ever again be treated as the Marchioness bereaved clearly were: as a troublesome nuisance. The coroner's review gives us an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past. If it does, it will be a lasting tribute to the work of those bereaved families who have fought so hard to ensure that in future no families find that they have to cope with humiliation as well as grief.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on securing this debate. It is a matter on which he has campaigned for some years and I know how strongly he feels about it. He has made extremely important points. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) also contributed as the constituency Member of Parliament for the Westminster coroner.
	My hon. Friend spoke extremely movingly about the distress of the families and friends of those who died in the Marchioness disaster. I am sure that everyone in the House would join me in expressing our sympathy for the families of those who died. The passing of time can never erase their grief.
	My hon. Friend drew particular attention to the concerns expressed about the conduct of the Westminster coroner, Dr. Paul Knapman, in the exercise of his duties. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry into the identification of victims was established and his report was published on 23 March 2001. As Lord Justice Clarke emphasised at the outset of his report, the most important aim of the inquiry was to ensure that all the necessary lessons were learned for the future. Nevertheless, that report contained criticisms of the Westminster coroner.
	It might assist right hon. and hon. Members if I explain the Lord Chancellor's powers in relation to coroners. Under section 3(4) of the Coroners Act 1988, the Lord Chancellor has the power to remove a coroner for misbehaviour or inability in the course of his duties. The Lord Chancellor can also take a lesser form of disciplinary action, such as suspension or admonishment. I should stress, however, that the Lord Chancellor cannot comment on, or intervene in, complaints received about judicial decisions, the process of reasoning underlying those decisions or any matter involving the exercise of judicial functions.
	To return to Lord Justice Clarke's report, although he accepted that Dr. Knapman acted with the best of intentions and at all times in good faith, he concluded that Dr. Knapman could, and should, have acted differently in a number of respects. Lord Justice Clarke did not find that Dr. Knapman had been reckless, as was suggested by some at the time of the inquiry, but he considered that Dr. Knapman failed to give sufficient consideration to the likely feelings of the families in what was a most distressing situation.
	Following Lord Justice Clarke's report, the Lord Chancellor gave careful consideration to the criticisms of Dr. Knapman to determine whether disciplinary action was appropriate. Taking particular account of Lord Justice Clarke's conclusion that Dr. Knapman acted at all times in good faith, the Lord Chancellor was not satisfied that there was evidence of misbehaviour or inability, which would warrant the exercise of his powers under the Coroners Act 1988.
	However, the Lord Chancellor concluded that Dr. Knapman's conduct on that occasion fell below the standard properly expected of a holder of judicial office. In consequence, he determined that disciplinary action was appropriate and issued Dr. Knapman with a formal admonishment, as the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea said. As my hon. Friend said, that was made known to Parliament in my written response of 6 November 2001 to the parliamentary question that he tabled.
	The Lord Chancellor now considers that the case regarding Dr. Knapman's position as a result of actions taken in the aftermath of the Marchioness tragedy is closed. The Lord Chancellor deeply sympathises with the continuing distress of survivors and families of victims of the Marchioness disaster. None of us can imagine what it must be like to carry that burden of grief. However, it has to be said that Dr. Knapman's conduct has been examined in detail and at length by an independent inquiry. The criticisms made against him by that inquiry were considered most carefully by the Lord Chancellor, and appropriate disciplinary action was taken. The Lord Chancellor believes that we must now regard Dr. Knapman's conduct in respect of the Marchioness tragedy to be a closed issue.
	My hon. Friend referred to tissue samples, and some of his comments also apply to the later case to which he referred. Lord Justice Clarke referred to that issue in his report, but he decided not to delay concluding the report, as it was felt that that matter fitted more properly into considerations of recommendations following the Bristol and Alder Hey inquiries. The Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly are consulting on changes to the law in this area. As hon. Members may know, the issue is also raised in the recent consultation paper from Tom Luce as part of the coroners review. I understand that Tom Luce is keeping in touch with the retained organs commission with regard to the progress of, and thinking behind, the review.
	As I said, my hon. Friend has also spoken this evening about Dr. Knapman's handling of the inquest into the death of Susan Annis, which, as he mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) has also raised with me. The Lord Chancellor was advised last year of a complaint about Dr. Knapman's handling of the inquest into the death of Susan Annis. However, that complaint turned on the exercise by Dr. Knapman of his judicial discretion. As I stated earlier, the Lord Chancellor has no power to intervene about decisions of this nature made by coroners in particular inquests. The appropriate remedy is an application for judicial review or an application under section 13 of the Coroners Act. Section 13 provides for an application to be made to the High Court for an order to hold another inquest when that is necessary or desirable, whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry or discovery of new facts, evidence or otherwise. I note that my hon. Friend referred to certain factors that he believes have come to light, which may fall into that category.
	I turn now to the review of the coroner system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred. In summer 2001, the Government appointed Tom Luce to chair a review of the death certification processes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The review is sponsored by the Home Office and the Northern Ireland court service, but is independent of Government. Tom Luce and his team published a consultation document on 30 August this year, having spent time with all the key professional bodies whose members work within the death certification and coroner system, as well as with voluntary bodies, support groups and private individuals who have experience of the system. To assist with its work, the review team has set up a reference group; among its members are two representatives from the Marchioness contact group. I know that Tom Luce plans to keep in touch with the group until the review is complete, and it is expected that a final report will be published next spring.
	In view of the points made by my hon. Friend this evening, which are extremely important, I undertake to write personally to Tom Luce to draw his attention to those points and the comments that have been made about the coronial system. Therefore, before he begins the next stage of his work, he will be aware of my hon. Friend's concerns and the concerns of others that he has reflected.
	This debate has highlighted very important concerns expressed by families in these most tragic circumstances. I hope that I have been able not only to highlight the powers that the Lord Chancellor has in such circumstances and the action that he has previously taken, but to emphasise the fact that lessons can be learned. We must do that.
	I thank my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea for their contributions. My hon. Friend has clearly expressed the concerns of those involved in this tragic case. We all pay tribute to them for continuing to campaign for what they think is right and for changes to be made. We can learn many lessons and I trust that he will accept that my writing to the review will, I hope, enable us to take forward many of the ideas that have been expressed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.